Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Millennium Dome

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. Christopher Fraser: I begin by expressing my gratitude to you, Madam Speaker, for granting me this Adjournment debate.
At the time of the first session of questions to the Minister Without Portfolio, hon. Members on both sides were concerned about the high-handed way in which the House was being treated. Only five minutes were allowed for questions to the Minister, which allowed only one question tabled to be answered—a point I raised with you at the time, Madam Speaker. In eight months, the Minister has answered only four oral questions tabled.
The millennium dome is huge project of such significance to Britain that five minutes for questions was clearly pathetic, and I am glad to say that the time has now been doubled. If it continues to increase at the current rate, we might be closer to having a proper session for questions to the Minister by 2000.
Today's debate ensures that the Minister will be in the House for an hour and a half this morning. I am pleased to see that the hon. Gentleman has managed to find his way to the Chamber, even if he is not listening to me at this moment. It is truly a new experience for the Minister with responsibility for the millennium experience, and he may find that the House is capable of giving him a better ride than anything he found on his jolly to Disneyworld. I hope that he will enjoy his accountability experience this morning.
The debate is long overdue. As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I have spent much time examining the preparations for the millennium celebration at Greenwich. I and other Members from both sides of the Committee have become increasingly concerned about the level and detail of the preparations.
One comment in evidence to our Committee illustrates that point. Mr. Michael Grade, a director of the New Millennium Experience Company, was asked by the Committee to consider the millennium events, and, in his reply, used two sporting events to illustrate his point. He told us:
the Olympic Games; it has been known that they were going to have an Olympic Games in the year 2000 for over 100 years. It is every four years, war excepted. Similarly, the World Soccer Cup is a very predictable event, six or eight years ahead. We are playing catch-up.

Playing catch-up? Could Mr. Grade not have predicted that there would be a millennium? Are we to believe that it is easier to organise a world cup with six or eight years' notice than a millennium event with 2,000 years notice?

Mr. John Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Fraser: No. I have a long speech to give, but I shall give way in a moment.
Why are we playing catch-up? We are doing so because the Labour party in opposition rubbished the project and cast doubt on its future. In such circumstances, the private sector was reluctant to commit any money before the election. When Labour came to power, the Government dithered and delayed, and now we are running out of time.
I trust that the Minister will not be insulted by what I am saying, and that he will not blame others for what has happened. Responsibility must rest on the Government Benches alone. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) has pointed out, the Prime Minister and his colleagues played politics with the issue before the election—action my right hon. Friend described to the Select Committee as "unnecessary and unprincipled".
It might be useful to have a definition of the word "millennium". "Collins English Dictionary" offers the following:
1. … Christianity. the period of a thousand years of Christ's awaited reign upon earth. 2. a period or cycle of one thousand years. 3. a time of peace and happiness. esp. in the distant future.
I am sure that it is the third definition that appeals overwhelmingly to the Minister, but peace and happiness are a long way off for him.
I am convinced that part of the reason the project has been dogged by confusion and disarray cannot simply be put down to the inexperience of the Minister Without Portfolio, although he must be a key factor in it. It most certainly comes down to the lack of an overriding theme. We are to mark the millennium, but the question "For what?" has not yet been answered; it has not yet been posed. When I asked Mr. Robert Ayling, the chairman, no less, of the New Millennium Experience Company, why other countries are not undertaking such a vast and mammoth project, he told me, "I do not know."
I believe that there is a case for a millennium experience to mark a significant date in the Christian calendar in a fitting and memorable way. It is also a good way to remind the Minister Without Portfolio that time did not begin on 1 May last year. Indeed, given that the event is to go ahead, we Conservatives would rather that it is a success than a disaster. For that reason, I hope that the Minister will take our concerns seriously and with good will.
We know of none of the contents of the dome, but, given the hon. Gentleman's record in his previous incarnation, it will not surprise the House to know that we have a slogan. It is strikingly familiar:
It's time to make a difference.
Someone should have told the hon. Gentleman that he is organising a millennium celebration, not running an election campaign.
When I heard the slogan, feeble though it is, I thought that it had been chosen to fit in with the contents; I began to believe that there must be a strategy after all. I fear that I was being optimistic, for we still have no details of the contents.
As someone who has a limited experience of the marketing business, I must say that it is unusual to design logos and slogans—a marketing campaign in embryo—without a product. It could be said that the dome preparations, like the Government themselves, are a triumph of style over substance. As the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
It is a little like Cadbury's developing a wrapper without actually deciding what the chocolate bar is going to be.
Does someone need a marketing degree to work out that, in order to attract visitors, it is a good idea to tell them what they might see? Yet, despite the scale of the challenge and the time scale we face—there are now fewer than 500 working days to go—we still know almost nothing. We can compare that to the preparations that the Australians have been making for the Sydney Olympics, where the schedule was completed in 1994. Mr. Keith Bales, a former senior Disney executive and an expert in developing visitor attraction projects, told the Select Committee that no one on the board
has ever run, managed, designed or promoted in any way whatsoever a major international leisure attraction.
This situation has all the makings of a Whitehall farce.
Does the Minister have a grip on what is happening? He says that the dome will not be a theme park, yet, at the taxpayer's expense, he visits Disneyworld for ideas. We are told that the project is to highlight the best of British, yet the Prime Minister jets off to Japan to beg for investment. The Minister needs to clarify the matter: who is telling the truth? Is it him when he tells The Daily Telegraph that the dome is to have a Christian theme? Is it him when he tells the Select Committee that it is
for all faiths, and none"?
Is it Sir Terence Conran, the Minister's new litmus test, who believes that it is "inappropriate" to mention Christ in the Christian millennium? Or does he need to ask his eight-year-old adviser from the newly appointed junior board—ironically called Christian—before he can tell the House?
The point may be becoming obvious: no one has a clue what is going on, least of all those in charge of the project.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: When is the hon. Gentleman going to get to the substance of his remarks? Everything he has said has been negative, and an attempt to diminish a bold experiment which many Labour Members have supported and which has all-party support. It is a bold, imaginative project that is good for this country. When will the hon. Gentleman stop carping and say something positive about a really good idea which has support from both sides of the House and throughout the country?

Mr. Fraser: The quicker the hon. Gentleman sits down, the quicker he will hear me make that point. My speech contains plenty of quotes from the Minister, who starts to hang himself. If the hon. Gentleman hangs around, he will find out.
The Minister has been responding to substantive issues with gimmicks. I am, however, happy to pay tribute to Greenwich council, which has fought so hard and so well

for the location of the dome. If the project works, it will bring Greenwich huge benefits, including economic and social regeneration, employment, the Jubilee line extension, an extension to the Docklands light railway, the development of river bus service—something that I have long advocated-10,000 new homes; it will bring back into use 1,000 acres of derelict and contaminated land. All that is to be welcomed.
The overriding reason for choosing Greenwich is obvious: it sits on the prime meridian. But believe it or not, the dome itself will not. To stand on the prime meridian, one will have to leave the all-weather dome and brave the elements, for the meridian lies outside the dome.
I referred to the absence of content, but one part of the contents is known. It will astonish the House to know that guaranteed to be in the dome is the air vent of the Blackwall tunnel. Perhaps I am being unfair, for the commitment of the Minister and his leader, the Prime Minister, to hot air is well known; they have built their careers on it.
We are assured that all will soon become clear. Ms Page, chief executive of the New Millennium Experience Company, said in her evidence:
We are going to start the marketing in the first quarter of 1998".
We are now told that there is to be a launch on 24 February; perhaps all will be revealed, the veil will be lifted and light will be shone on the project. I certainly hope so, and I look forward to more details from the Minister this morning, for time is now short: there are, I repeat, fewer than 500 working days left.
What really concerns me is that the Minister should make his announcements about the millennium exhibition here in this Chamber, before any grand press launch. We in this House must be the first to hear the details that are apparently to be launched on 24 February. I look to the Minister to give the House and you, Madam Speaker, a concrete undertaking that that will be the case. In the absence of a satisfactory assurance from the Minister, it will be my intention to take the matter up with you. The Government have a poor record when it comes to announcements of that sort, as you have often said in the Chamber.
It might be useful to the House to be reminded of this Administration's record; it is a catalogue of muddled thinking, incompetence and double standards. The Government profess a profound concern over so-called fat cats, but one of the Minister's first acts on 26 June last year was to appoint Mark McCormack of the IMG group to attract sponsors; his commission could be as much as £15 million. Would he not be the fattest cat who ever walked? Does not that appointment reveal a certain hypocrisy?

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the subject of hypocrisy, the fact is that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) did not declare an interest this morning. He is well known as a part-time Member of Parliament; he is actually a travel agent who is very much concerned with the millennium


dome. He has not made any announcement to that effect, and if there is any hypocrisy in this Chamber, it comes from him.

Madam Speaker: I think the hon. Gentleman is showing a great deal of frustration, but is he saying to me that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) should be declaring an interest?

Mr. Sheerman: Absolutely.

Madam Speaker: If that is the case, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will declare an interest now. Before he does so, may I make an appeal to the House? There is a great deal of demand to speak in this debate, and Members will be very disappointed if they cannot speak, so I ask for very short speeches. I return to the point about an interest. Would the hon. Gentleman declare an interest, if he has reason to do so?

Mr. Fraser: I am a director of a travel company which has absolutely nothing to do with the millennium dome and millennium experience.
After renaming the company in July, the Minister increased the pace in August. The signed contract with a German firm for the roof of the dome was cancelled, and a new one placed with an American company. Legal action for breach of contract may be about to follow. The irony that the dome is to promote the "best of British" will not be lost on the House.
Undeterred, the Minister pressed on. He dealt with an early-day motion, reported in the Evening Standard, tabled by his colleague the hon. Member for Hackney. North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), calling for greater accountability and publication of interim accounts. However, I am sure that the Minister is not talking to his hon. Friend the Paymaster General about setting up the New Millennium Experience Company offshore.
On this occasion, the Minister is using British company law to afford himself all the secrecy he needs. He is hiding behind a code of practice on access to Government information which was put in place to protect private contractors, not to be used as a smokescreen for Ministers' accountability to the House.
Perhaps this is one of the areas where the Minister could help the House today. Although he is legally correct in saying that he is not obliged to publish last year's accounts for the New Millennium Experience Company until September 1998, does he accept that, in the case of a project involving £780 million of so-called public money, there is a moral obligation to publish sooner? Or are the finances of the project in such a state that he is petrified of publication? I trust that the Minister will address those critical issues this morning.
In November, it got even better. The Independent reported that the Jubilee line will not be up to full capacity by the year 2000. Only 10 trains an hour may run—rather than 36 at full capacity—a view articulated when London Underground gave evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. No wonder the Government are reported to be planning a privatisation of London Underground—perhaps to blame the private sector for their own failings.
In December, the Minister has a tremendous idea. He tells the House of his inspired idea of a "junior council" of children and teenagers to advise on what is

"cool". Does it not seem odd that, given the amount of money being poured into consultancy fees in this £780 million project, with fewer than 500 working days to go before the millennium, all he can do is to turn to children for advice on the contents of the centrepiece—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—the centrepiece of the nation's celebration for the millennium? Is it not a case of the boy maketh the man?
Then the poor Minister hits a spate of panic departures. Off goes Sir Cameron Mackintosh at Christmas. Off goes Stephen Bayley in January. The chief executive of the Millennium Commission, Eric Sorensen, is off, too. That is an interesting development for a job-creating project.
In his evidence to the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, the Minister spoke of an interactive exhibit in the dome with the working title "Qualify for 20 jobs you never knew existed". It seems that the list of candidates for those jobs is already growing. In 500 days' time, there may well be more applicants than jobs. If any more people were to resign, the Minister may well have to build the dome on his own. Just imagine it: Lord Puttnam could make a film about it. It could be called "Dome Alone".

Mr. Nigel Evans: My hon. Friend mentioned one movie. I was just wondering whether the Minister Without Portfolio was getting his ideas from another film, called "Field of Dreams". I do not know whether he has seen it. It is about a fanner in Idaho who hears voices saying: "Build it. They will come." Although the farmer is threatened with bankruptcy, he removes one of his cash crops to build a baseball park. I shall not spoil the end of the movie for everyone, but does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister Without Portfolio may be hearing these voices, directing him? How much longer must we wait before he hears more voices, telling him what he needs to put in the dome?

Mr. Fraser: I suspect that, as we speak, many writers are lining up to put that film into production.
I shall now turn to the financial and contingency plans—or, rather, to the absence of contingency plans. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley said:
If you cannot answer the question about the contents, you cannot get somebody to sign up for the money
nor, I imagine, can you get people to visit the dome.
Yet all the projections have been done on the calculation of 12 million visitors in 12 months. Mr. Bales, an ex-Disney senior executive, who has vast experience in these matters—certainly more than the Minister—was blunt with the Select Committee. He told us:
I do not believe those numbers".
Yet, when we ask for details of contingency plans, we are greeted with intransigence. We know only that there is to be a spurious contingency fund of £200 million of public money, to cover over-runs on the cost. Will the Minister tell us this morning whether it will also cover under-runs on income?
We have been told that 12 million people will visit the dome exhibition—more than 32,000 people a day, every day for the whole year—mostly, I hasten to say, in off-peak hours, because London Underground cannot meet the demand. What happens if the attendance does not meet expectations? How can the Minister say that


32,000 people will visit every day for the whole year when he cannot say what they will see when they get there? It is time for answers.
The Minister's assurance that the dome will be on time could cause a skip of the heart in the most collected of people. The Minister said:
This has to open and it will open on New Year's Eve at the end of December 1999. We are ahead of our critical path at the moment, touch wood, cross fingers".
How can the House be satisfied with such an answer?
We are talking about an event during which the eyes of the world will be on Britain and on Greenwich, and all the Minister can say is, "Touch wood, cross fingers." It would be hilarious, if it were not so serious. I am drawn to the conclusion that the only contingency plan that the Minister has in mind is to postpone the opening of the millennium exhibition to 31 December 2000 the date that many people believe to be the true eve of the next millennium.
Let us move on to matters of funding. In Committee, I pressed the Minister on this issue, and he told me:
There are commitments. There are also indications of interest.
I then asked the Minister:
Can you give us any figures for each of those two categories?
The Minister responded directly to me in a way that beggared belief:
No. I am not able to do so.
I asked:
Not able to for what reason?
He replied directly:
Because an indication of interest, by its very nature, suggests that no firm commitment to a sum of money has been made.
The farce continues.
As the Minister will not tell the Select Committee, perhaps he tell the House this morning. What level of commitment, in cash terms, does he have? It is a simple question, and I should like to know the answer.
I bring, for the edification of the House, another surreal experience. At the same meeting of the Committee, the Minister was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant):
Can you now say, of that £150 million that is needed at this stage, as of today, how much has been committed?
The Minister's reply was:
Will I or can I?
My hon. Friend asked:
Would you?
The Minister replied:
No, I will not.
Oh, to live in the age of open government.
The Minister gave the game away when he was pushed further. He told us:
On occasions, I have wondered whether there is not going to be a mad scramble by private companies to get a presence in what is a unique event.
I can almost picture the Minister late at night, dreaming of a mad scramble to put money into an empty dome—touch wood, cross fingers, as someone once said.
I entirely understand the Minister wishing to follow in his grandfather's footsteps. Herbert Morrison organised the festival of Britain in 1951. I know that the Minister enjoys the irony of that precedent. In this case, he clearly believes in the heredity principle.
We on the Conservative Benches are encouraged by that precedent, for, although the Minister's grandfather organised the festival of Britain in 1951, he also played a key role in leading his Government and party to defeat at the polls that same year. For the sake of the country, I hope that the hon. Gentleman stays close to his grandfather's path.
May I use this opportunity to ask the Minister for an update on the report of the Select Committee? Two important requests were made. The first was that a comprehensive contingency plan be completed by the New Millennium Experience Company as a matter of urgency. As the Minister is the sole shareholder in that company, I assume that he has some responsibility for seeing that that is done.
Secondly, it should be a matter of utmost priority for London Underground to work on the delivery of a signalling system to allow 24 trains per hour to use the North Greenwich station in the year 2000, to meet the capacity that the Minister has promised. My question is simple: what progress?
The Minister told the Committee:
I will come on any occasion to meet any of my colleagues in Parliament and provide them with any information on a public or confidential basis… in order to make sure that people like you are satisfied that we are acting in a proper and transparent way. You have that undertaking from me today.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to retain any credibility with the House, he has the opportunity today to make good those words and to answer the questions and concerns of the House about the matter. I urge him to come clean today.

Mr. Stuart Bell: I shall follow Madam Speaker's advice to be brief, so I shall not take up the statements made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser).
I must, however, draw attention to the comments of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who told us the wonderful story of "Field of Dreams", about the voice that said, "They will come," when a baseball park was created out of nowhere, and they all came. It was a happy ending.

Mr. Evans: The main point, which I hope the Minister Without Portfolio will take on board, is that "Field of Dreams" is make-believe. The farmer was an actor. Things like that do not happen in real life. People will need a reason to come to the millennium dome: the Minister must give them a reason to come.

Mr. Bell: The film was a true story, and it was motivated by divine intervention. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish me, as the Second Church Estates Commissioner, to say that there is no such thing.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bell: I shall make a few comments as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and speak on behalf of


The Churches Together in England, which are working on plans for the millennium. My hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio is right to recognise that the millennium is, first and foremost, a Christian event. It marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Jesus Christ. We have heard the comments of Sir Terence Conran, but it is right that this is an occasion on which our Christian faith, heritage and culture are celebrated.
The other faiths in our society recognise that, and accord deference to the birth of Jesus, as of course we accord deference to them in their beliefs. They recognise the significance of the millennium event in terms of the calendar and history of this country.
The Churches Together in England recognise that not only the Churches but the nation a whole wish to celebrate the millennium. The United Kingdom comprises a multicultural society of different faiths and beliefs, and the millennium celebrations must reach out and touch the lives of all our people, and reflect the diverse religious and cultural traditions that enrich our national life.
The Churches Together in England welcome the Government's commitment to reflect Christianity as a central theme in the millennium dome and to provide a chapel. They urge that the proposed spirit zone should include a strong Christian presence, as well as reflecting the United Kingdom's multi-faith culture.
The Churches Together in England welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with those who are organising the Millennium Experience at Greenwich, as well as the wider national celebrations. They welcome, too, the opportunity to advise on the Christian input. The Churches look forward to continuing co-operation with the Government as the plans for the millennium proceed.
The Churches Together in England use the theme "a new start" as an agenda for the millennium—a message that is at the heart of the Christian Gospel and gives everyone the chance to make something special for the year 2000.
In the wider context, the Churches are planning to give special millennium candles to every household, and to encourage people to take the candles with them wherever they go on millennium eve. Madam Speaker, along with the Lord Chancellor, has given permission for an ecumenical service of thanksgiving and commemoration to be held at St. Margaret's when the House returns from the Christmas recess in January 2000. The special millennium candle will come with the text of a millennium affirmation, which the Churches hope can be included in the official programme for the celebrations on 31 December 1999.
With reference to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser), on millennium evening the eyes of the world will be on Greenwich. The choice that faced the previous Government and faces the present Government is whether the eyes of the world should focus on a derelict site in the middle of London, or on a dome that has risen from the ground, created by imagination and vision. What image of our country do we want to give the world, as the world contemplates Greenwich mean time and turns its eyes on the great event on 1 January 2000?
The Government are to be congratulated. My hon. Friend will no doubt suffer
the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune".
He will not mind me quoting the words of Robert Browning: his
reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for?

Mr. Michael Heseltine: I am grateful for the opportunity to add a few words to those of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser).
The House will be aware that the dome and the millennium festival were the inspiration of the Millennium Commission, which was set up by the previous Government on a non-partisan basis. A representative of the Labour party was invited to take part. The noble Lord Montague—Michael Montague, as he then was—sat with my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, and me on the Millennium Commission.
It was always our intention that the distribution of funds of the Millennium Commission should be a non-party process. My hon. Friend was fair to make the point that that degree of commitment remains part of his purpose, and I welcome that.
As a representative of the Conservative party on the Millennium Commission at the invitation of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister after the election, I am privy to all the information that is available, to the best of my knowledge. If I want extra information, I can get it.
The issue of partisan controversy raised its head only once—during the difficulties that arose at the time of the election. I was critical of the Select Committee over what the present Prime Minister did, because Michael Montague had all the information all the way through the Millennium Commission's life, and was clearly supportive of the decisions we took. There was no question about that whatever. It was not until the questions became controversial that the matter was drawn into the office of the then Leader of the Opposition, and the commitments that Michael Montague had made in private were as nothing. I was deeply critical of that process, and remain so to this day.
Having said that, after the election, when responsibility shifted to the new Government, I was invited to remain a member of the commission. The Minister Without Portfolio has continued to conduct the process of government in a way that I set up when the Conservatives were the Government of the day. Indeed, I hope that he will not mind my saying that it was my suggestion that he play the role that he now plays, because, when the original arrangements were made, the commission was to be wholly responsible for the dispersal of funds, but, as we moved into the process of organising the festival, it became apparent that there were a range of issues in which the Government would have to become involved, the most obvious one being transport infrastructure, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned. That is not something that the commission could in any way influence, but it is a critical aspect of the delivery of the festival experience. It became clear to me as Deputy Prime Minister that co-ordination at ministerial level was required.
The second big change that took place was that the original statute passed by this place imposed on the commission a restriction that we could not initiate projects. We had to wait for people to come to us with ideas, which we could then decide to fund, or not. That process was not compatible with organising such a major festival, so it was necessary to set up the New Millennium Experience Company to bring together the private and public sectors and to have co-ordinated ministerial activity to deal with any issues that were difficult in the context of what we were trying to achieve. That having happened, the commitment remained absolute.
My hon. Friend asked: "What is the purpose? What is the message?" It has not changed: to celebrate the millennium with a great national occasion that shows pride in our past and confidence in the future. It is perfectly true that nobody has tried in public to create a more detailed blueprint of what we are trying to achieve.
My hon. Friend, with his experience in the travel industry, will know as clearly as the rest of us that, if one is launching a project, one has to be sure that it is subject to detailed criticism and questioning before it is launched. Take a new car, for example. Motor manufacturers go to huge trouble to stop the press getting photographs of cars as they are tested, because they want to have conducted all the tests to destruction until the launch.
We face the same dilemma with the festival. There is a huge, prodigious weight of work and detail about the contents of the dome. Some of it has leaked—as it does in this day and age—in the national press. There are a vast range of working models, specifications and details, and within a short time-1 know that the Minister will say something about this later this morning—we will be part of the unveiling of the project. I believe that it will be extremely exciting. It will undoubtedly arouse a great deal of interest and controversy. There is no escape from that. One cannot have something like this without everybody having their own ideas about what it should be.
Those of us who are close to the process have to take decisions. It cannot be done by public consultation. One cannot have 10,000 different views on the dome. Someone has to be in charge and take a decision. That is why we invited Robert Ayling, the chief executive of one of Britain's most successful companies in the international travel business, to become the lead figure in deciding the details and masterminding the execution of the project. He has done that with great diligence.
I hope that this debate will not concentrate on the weaknesses, difficulties and delays. Now that it is clear that the money will be spent, that the project will happen, our task must surely be to avoid the mistake that our predecessors in 1851 made, which nearly destroyed the great exhibition of that year before it ever took place. Our task is to maximise the national gain and recognise that this is a non-party-controversial issue; it is an all-party endeavour.
If my hon. Friend ever wants to consult me on these matters, I shall do my best to give him any information he wants. The appointment of Mark McCormack was my responsibility, if I remember correctly. The contract was not signed by the previous Government, but the negotiations with Mr. McCormack certainly began under the previous Government. One can argue whether one

wants such a fund raiser. That is a perfectly good argument. I was responsible for raising a great deal of the money that has been raised, with Lord Levene.
It would be the nicest thing in the world to produce a list of the companies that have contributed £150 million-worth, but it does not work like that. Anyone who has ever launched a project knows how the world works. One goes to see the people concerned, at a senior level, because there is no point in going to No. 10 or 15 in the company on an issue such as this. One has to go to the top, and say, "Are you going to back this project?" They say, "What's it all about?" They are told what it is about, and they say, "That's interesting. I think we can play a part in that. Come back when you've got some detail."
Until one has the most precise detail and can answer every detailed question, they will not sign; but, until they sign, the list cannot be produced. If one gives indicative figures, one can be absolutely sure that the British press, being what they are, will be off to the companies concerned, asking, "Have you signed?", to which the companies will say, "No, we haven't yet signed," so the press will ask, "Well, who is going to do the signing?", to which the companies will say, "The chairman is talking to somebody, but we don't know anything about this."
That is what goes on in the real world. Then the great British press, conducting themselves as they do, will write, "There are no commitments." Technically, that could be the case, but my own judgment is that the money that I was promised when doing this exercise is on the table today, as it was then.
That does not mean that there are contracts. I think that there will be contracts, but it does not mean that they have been signed. I think that we are close to the point at which they will start to be signed. I remain as confident as I can be today, as I was at the beginning, that we will raise the money that we intended to raise.
I have seen suggestions that the project is behind schedule and is out of budget. Yesterday I asked the chief executive of the millennium experience what the position is. The answer was absolutely clear: the project is to time, the critical path is being maintained and the project is within the initial budget.
My hon. Friend raised an important question: what about the contingency fund? What if the numbers do not come? Will the contingency fund cover it? Of course it will. I made that arrangement. It was my idea to extend the funding of the Millennium Commission to be sure that there was a contingency back-up. What else could one conceivably have done? I personally believe that, if anything, more people will come than we have envisaged.
I remember vividly my only experience of such a project, the Liverpool garden festival. I can tell my hon. Friends, as not many of them would have been in the House at the time, that, until we opened the Liverpool garden festival, it was aggro all the way. "Give us jobs, not flowers," was the great Liverpool phrase at the time. Once we opened the festival, it became a huge source of pride to the people of Liverpool—so much so that they kept the festival.
The festival is still there. I wanted to use the land for the building of houses, offices, factories or whatever, but the people of Liverpool became so pleased with the reclamation that they still effectively have the shadow of


the festival on the banks of the Mersey. We talked about 3 million people corning to the festival in Liverpool, and they came. I remember vividly that the experts who calculate these things, who look at what is happening at Madame Tussaud' s, Alton Towers, and other great places, gave us the figure of 3 million.
As a Minister with no such experience, but a certain caution about this place, I was not prepared to say that we would get 3 million people, so I gave the classic ministerial reply: "I am advised that we will get 3 million people". Actually, I was too cautious, because we did, and today 6 million visitors a year visit the banks of the Mersey, the Tate and Albert dock. Thus, we are talking about only double the number of people who go to the Albert dock every year.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, the contingency covers all contingencies and has had to do so. Without it, we would never have got the festival off the ground.
I hope that the House appreciates the fact that the die is cast. This festival will happen. It has the capacity to attract dramatically large numbers of people. It will be very expensive, and we hope to pay significant sums from the private sector. However, the country will gain far more in revenue than the cost of the festival. One has only to calculate the number of people who will come, and the travel, hotel and disbursement costs, to see that the revenue will exceed even the likely outlay of £750 million on the festival experience. Much more important is the symbolism of this country turning the millennium, proud of its past and confident in its future.

Mr. John Austin: As a former leader of Greenwich council and a former mayor, I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) for the plaudits that he gave Greenwich council for its vision and determination.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) spoke about the genesis of the dome project. The idea of a millennium celebration came from Greenwich council long before the Millennium Commission was ever established, and it is right to praise it for its determination. Delays in planning have been caused by both the previous and the present Governments. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Henley for his appreciation of the regeneration potential of the millennium celebration.
Many people envisage Greenwich as a leafy London suburb full of heritage buildings and fine Georgian terraces, but that is not a true picture of the borough or the area of south London in which Greenwich is situated. Greenwich is the right location to celebrate the millennium, because of its association with time, its position on the meridian and its heritage buildings, not just those immediately around the site—the royal naval college, the royal observatory and Hawksmoor church—but the royal arsenal, which sits on 75 acres of derelict industrial land in my former constituency of Woolwich. I doubt whether anywhere else in Britain has such a fine collection of heritage buildings.
The history of the British empire is in that area. Whenever the British Army went to war, to build the empire or to invade, the troops camped on Woolwich common, went down to the arsenal and boarded the boats. The legacy of that history is the richness of the cultural diversity in Britain today.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), the Church Commissioner representative, said, a specific aspect of the millennium is important to the Christian community. It is also important to the Muslim community, because the birth of Jesus is a significant event in the Muslim calendar. Nevertheless, I hope that the celebration will reflect the multi-faith and multicultural diversity of today's society.
I have discussed the regeneration of the area; let me now put it into context. In the borough of Greenwich as a whole, for a long time unemployment has been much higher than the average for outer-London boroughs. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' index of deprivation shows that Greenwich is 14th of all local authority districts in England. Some parts of my constituency are among the most deprived areas in the country.
The millennium experience is important in terms of regeneration potential, not only for Greenwich but for the whole of the Thames gateway, east London and south-east London, which has lost more jobs in recent years than almost any other part of the United Kingdom. In its heyday, the royal arsenal employed 80,000 people in munitions manufacture, and was the largest factory on one site in western Europe. Today, it is a derelict site that employs no one. Its regeneration depends on the regeneration potential of the millennium site on the peninsula in Greenwich.
When I first came to Greenwich in 1966, there were scores of manufacturing industries along the river front: foundries, Stones, Vickers, AEI, the Siemens factory. Within a few months of my arrival in Greenwich, GEC took over AEI and announced the closure of that factory, with the loss of 5,000 jobs at a stroke. GEC relocated to Hartlepool, so it is gratifying that the Minister Without Portfolio, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), can give us more jobs back—and with interest.
We have had years of unemployment and severe skills shortages, but I pay tribute to the local training and enterprise council, Greenwich council and local business, which are building on their skills for the millennium project. The section 106 agreement that has now been reached between Greenwich council and the New Millennium Experience Company will fund the development of local labour and training schemes.
The millennium exhibition and the dome will be the catalyst for change, breathing new life not only into Greenwich and the Thames gateway, but into London as a whole. The site is one of the most derelict in the country. British Gas has dealt with the problem of decontamination, and English Partnerships, the Government's regeneration agency, has put in the infrastructure. It will be an area not just for the dome but for parks, riverside walks, offices and housing. It is a barren brown-field site, on which 3,000 homes will be built. Given the subject of yesterday's debate, I should have thought that Opposition Members would welcome that housing development on an inner city brown-field site.
A further 7,000 homes will be built in the area, creating 2,000 construction jobs, 5,000 operational jobs and 3,000 jobs in secondary employment. That will generate an extra


£500 million in tourist revenue and probably an extra £1 billion in revenue to the economy as a whole, as the right hon. Member for Henley said.

Mr. Jim Murphy: In the light of my hon. Friend's comments and the comments of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) about Mr. McCormack's role in marketing the millennium dome, about employment generated by the millennium dome and the important role that the right hon. Member for Henley played in terms of the whole structure and idea, will my hon. Friend allow the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) to rise to apologise for, or to qualify or retract, the criticisms of the Minister Without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Henley and the national celebration of our millennium?

Mr. Austin: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's sedentary position that he does not wish to comment on that.
One of the essences of the exhibition is that it will be green; it will be a sustainable development in a car-free zone, with the possible exception of disabled people. The Jubilee line extension will have the largest underground station in western Europe and the capacity to bring 22,000 people an hour to the site. The Deputy Prime Minister has shown his determination to open up the River Thames, which for so long has been a barrier between the north and south of London. It is the least used highway in the capital, and, with its new piers and riverboat services, has the potential to be a vibrant part of the transport system of London. I welcome the opportunity that the millennium exhibition will give.
There is local concern about residual parking on the periphery of the area. The intention is to have "park-and-sail" and park-and-ride facilities and peripheral car parks. I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) about a park-and-ride facility at Falconwood Field. Will the Minister consider a possible alternative at Dartford Heath, which would enable traffic coming off the M25, M20 and M2 to disgorge into a car park? Public transport could then bring people to the millennium site on motorway standard roads without any incursion into residential areas.
On the possible car park in Thamesmead, I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the provision of another pier, so that we can have a park-and-sail rather than a park-and-ride facility.

Mr. Fraser: Although you are coming to the end of your speech—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman should remember that "you" refers to the Chair.

Mr. Fraser: Although the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, may I ask him a question? I accept his comments about Greenwich, which I also made in my speech, so it is nice to hear someone else agreeing with me. However, the purpose of the debate is to put an end to the excessive secrecy on this project.
Does he agree that there should be more accountability to the House for this project, which is purported to be using £780 million of public money?

Mr. Austin: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I hope that the Minister will give answers to many of his questions when he winds up the debate. It is not just Greenwich or even south-east London that will benefit from the dome and the millennium experience. Of the 30 contracts that have already been let, 25 have gone to United Kingdom companies. Contracts for the steel work and the cabling have benefited Bristol, Bolton and other parts of the country where the project has generated jobs.
The right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell), the former Secretary of State for National Heritage, said that the Greenwich area could be the Versailles of London. I think that, given its heritage, it has more to offer than Versailles.
The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) told the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport:
I feel that it is right in the conduct of the nation's affairs every so often for nations to make a great statement of confidence, of great optimism for the future. There could be no more obvious moment to do that than on the anniversary of the millennium itself.
I hope that all hon. Members agree with that. There were critics of Paxton at the time of the 1851 exhibition. Some people criticised the Minister's grandfather over the Festival of Britain. Those exhibitions were resounding successes, and I believe that the millennium experience will also be a success. When the clock strikes on that midnight hour, all the eyes of the world will be looking jealously at Greenwich and at what we have achieved.

Mr. Norman Baker: I shall try to be quick, because I want to leave the Minister Without Portfolio time to respond to the points that have been made. This debate will have provided 85 minutes of discussion on the millennium dome, which is almost six times as long as we have had in this Parliament so far, and I hope that the Minister recognises that there is an appetite for more.
My party wants the millennium dome to succeed. We are not against the idea of a grand project for the millennium. However, in the spirit of constructive opposition, I want to put some points to the Minister to which I hope he will respond.
Irrespective of what hon. Members may feel about the project, many people are sceptical, because the Government have failed to sell the message of the millennium dome to the public at large. Many people think that it is a total waste of money, and that £780 million could have been better spent on other projects. Many think that it has been badly handled, and has failed to capture the public's imagination. If the Minister wants the project to succeed, it is up to him to deal with those shortcomings. Many of my constituents would have preferred to celebrate the millennium by having third-world debt repaid or the homeless housed, and I am sorry that that is not part of the Government's plans.
I have considerable concerns about accountability. Notwithstanding the comments of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), for whom I have great respect, it is incredible that we know so little about the project,


given that £780 million is a huge sum of public money. When was the last time that that amount of public money was allocated to a project without the House knowing the details? Was it the Chevaline project under the Callaghan Government? The Minister shakes his head. I draw his attention to the Select Committee report, which says that the distinction between lottery money and public money is a distinction without a difference.
The dome's former creative director, Stephen Bayley, who resigned so publicly, said that he could have constructed something stunning for £100 million. That seems reasonable to me: £40 million for the building; £40 million for the content; and £20 million for the infrastructure. Why do we need to spend £780 million on this project? No justification or explanation has been given as to why such a huge sum is required for a project that most people support, but not to that extent.
Where is the strategic thinking? If there has been some, it has not been shared with us. The Minister has attempted to keep information from the media whenever possible. We cannot be confident that there has been any strategic direction to the concept of the dome. That is Mr. Bayley's view in his pieces in The Spectator and in the national press. [Interruption.] The Labour party now considers Mr. Bayley persona non grata: he has been written out of new Labour's history books.
We should listen to him, because he was involved in the project. He argues that it has been the subject of focus groups that come up with different answers on different occasions—
bobbing and weaving to intercept public opinion.
As he puts it:
You are on message or you are off the job.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Baker: I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, but the two Front-Bench spokesmen must have time to finish the debate.
What will be inside the dome? The right hon. Member for Henley said that we should not expect to know, but the details that have emerged have varied. One week it is to be a Christian festival, then there was Japan and Walt Disney.
I am not clear that there has been any strategic thinking about the project. Even now, the plans for the inside have not been properly sorted out. It is a bit late in the day to go to Disneyland to scratch around for ideas while the millennium clock is ticking away. Perhaps the Minister could arrange to have a countdown clock erected on one of the pins in his pin cushion to remind everyone, and especially him, just how few days are left until 31 December 1999.
The Minister may remember the words of Bob Ayling from the New Millennium Experience Company, who told the Select Committee that he "could not guarantee" that the timetable would not slip. I have no doubt that it will be met, but things may have to be botched for the dome to open on time. It should be a first-rate project, not a second-rate one, which is how it appears at the moment.
The Select Committee concluded that a comprehensive contingency plan has not yet reached its final form. That is extraordinary, given that we are so near the final date.

It recommended that such a plan should be completed as a matter of urgency. Moreover, no accounts have yet been published.
The Minister must recognise that we need greater public accountability. We want not just 10 minutes' worth once a month from the Minister, and not just written answers, but substantive replies.
The millennium dome is a bright idea that has been sadly mismanaged by the Minister Without Portfolio. Constant changes of direction have prevented it from commanding the public support that it could have commanded.
I am sorry that I have no time to elaborate on the points I have made. The public are not committed to the project; hon. Members may be, but I hope that the Minister will recognise that there is a lot of work to be done if it is to meet its deadline.

Mr. Francis Maude: I am delighted that, at long last, we have an opportunity to debate this important issue. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) on choosing the topic, and on his success in the ballot.
No one questions that the millennium should be celebrated in a uniquely memorable way. It will be a date, and a year, of extraordinary resonance for everyone—a Christian celebration above all, of course, but not just that. The last Government were right to commit themselves and the nation to a splendid exhibition, and we certainly do not resile from that original vision. I pay warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), whose vision it was, and without whom the project would not be possible today. I know how much passion and commitment he has put into it, and we are all delighted that he is still involved and committed to making it work.

Ms Claire Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: Let me at least get started.
If my right hon. Friend were not there with his experience, wisdom and weight, we shudder to think what state the project would now be in.

Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: I have very little time, and I do not want to impinge on the Minister's time.
When it was unveiled, the project had remarkable—almost universal—support. Its majestic scope and vision commanded respect, even awe. How is it, then, that, in a few short months, the dome has become an object of ridicule—a laughing stock; a music hall joke—so that no cartoon is complete without a gibe at it, and no stand-up comedian's routine ends without a jeer at it? How could a project that carried such high hopes, and on whose success so much national prestige rides, have been allowed to fall so low?
The Minister Without Portfolio is someone whom Conservative Members, at any rate, admire—even respect. He is perhaps the foremost master of the art of presentation in this century—[Laughter.]—and possibly


in the next millennium as well: who can say?—if he lasts that long, of course. How is it, then, that he has failed so signally to mobilise any sense of national purpose and ownership in relation to this, our most eminent national project?

Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: I really do not want to. I have very little time.
The aim was that the British people should genuinely unite in an upsurge of rejoicing and national celebration; but—I say this with melancholy—the dream has turned sour. The Minister could not resist turning a great national project into a new Labour stunt. In short, he hijacked it: he appropriated it to his hubristic scheme to "rebrand Britain". In some mysterious way, the millennium experience—as it was now to be named—was to be a symbol of new Labour. In its current state, it is an unhappily apt emblem: it is all packaging and no content.
Since the Minister took charge in June, there has been an unbroken history of error, disorder and ridicule. No sooner has one embarrassment been swept away than another emerges to humiliate the hon. Gentleman, to the ill-concealed glee of his right hon. and hon. Friends.
There has been the dithering over whether to continue with the project at all, the Front-Bench team having rubbished it in the most offensive terms when in opposition, for cynical political gain. There has been the back-tracking over the covering, with the Deputy Prime Minister—taking time off from baiting the Minister Without Portfolio casually insulting British contractors, and the subsequent threats of legal action by the rejected firm. There has been the disclosure that the Jubilee line extension may be able to carry only a fraction of the number of visitors that the Minister predicts.
There have been the rows and resignations involving Sir Cameron Mackintosh and Eric Sorensen, and the anxieties recently expressed by Michael Grade. There has been the departure of Stephen Bayley, lambasting the Minister for his management and decisions. There has been the dispute with Sir Terence Conran over whether Christianity should have a place at all—Sir Terence believing, to general astonishment, that it should have none, and the Minister, in a desperate bid to please everyone, saying first that the Christian faith will be central, and then that the dome will be for "all faiths and none". There has been the stinging criticism by the Labour-packed Select Committee, whose report stated:
From what we know so far, the Millennium Experience is not so much a journey through time as, at any rate for those of us not made privy to the plans, a journey into the unknown.
There have been the pleas from a growing number of the Minister's own Back Benchers that he should come clean and account to the House for how the money is being spent. There has been the decision to more than double the commitment of lottery money to the project—to the detriment of deserving community projects up and down the land—to fill the private-sector funding gap caused by the Minister's own party's cynical rubbishing of the project when it was in opposition.
There are the continuing question marks over whether the decontamination work on the site is being undertaken thoroughly and deeply enough, and whether the rush to

save the Minister's reputation means that corners are being cut. There has recently been serious concern about the safety of construction workers on the site, and fears have been expressed that there is so much pressure on them to work quickly that precautions are being neglected.
I am sure that the Minister saw that story in the Sunday newspapers. One quotes a worker as saying:
there seemed to be a drive to complete the Dome in time for the Millennium".
[Laughter.] Hon. Members who claim to be concerned about workers' rights may want to hear how the report continues. The worker said:
there seemed to be a drive to complete the Dome in time for the Millennium, whatever the potential risk. 'Some abseilers are working 12-hour shifts with only a short break for lunch when the law requires a break of 10 minutes every four hours.
'It's all part of the pressure put on people around the Dome. We're told that only good publicity must be heard about the project.'
I hope that the Minister will allay our fears about that.
Then there were the Minister's portentous announcements on his visits to the House that the project would be marked by a park-and-sail scheme, and that he proposed to appoint a junior board to provide him with much-needed inspiration. I predict that his response today will be marked by some announcement of comparable bathos, for all the world as if the House of Commons should be treated like the Red Lion at lunchtime.
There was the Minister's visit to Florida. "It will not be a theme park," he tells us—so he jets off at the taxpayer's expense to gain inspiration from Disneyworld, that well-known non-theme park. Are we to have a transatlantic cousin of Mickey Mouse on the Thames—Mandy Mouse, perhaps?
There has been the Prime Minister's trawl of Tokyo for sponsors. It really is time for the Minister to come clean. He can no longer hide behind a code that was designed to protect companies, not Ministers.

Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: I have no time to give way, much as I admire the hon. Lady's fierce criticism and questioning of witnesses—including her hon. Friend the Minister—on the Committee. We all read it with interest and admiration.

Ms Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude: No, I simply have no time.
As I have said, the Minister should no longer seek to hide behind a code of conduct on disclosure that was designed not to protect Ministers, as he seems to think, but to protect companies. Why can he not now publish interim accounts? What is the money actually being spent on? What will be the entrance fee? The Minister points at his watch; I shall give him as much time as I have had. I am confident that, as—we are told—the second most powerful man in the Government, and with his influence in the Government, the Minister could arrange extra time to hold himself accountable if he chose to; but we know that he does not choose to.
What basis is there for predicting that 12 million people will visit the dome, when the British museum—currently the most popular attraction for visitors—has half that


number each year with no charges, and when the biggest paid-for attraction has a sixth of that number? What guarantee is there that the Jubilee line will be able to carry even a fraction of that number?
Who will pick up the bill if there are fewer visitors than expected? How many commitments of sponsorship has the Minister received? Can he assure the House that men's lives are not being placed at risk because of the mad rush to save his reputation? Does he understand the depth of concern about the contents? Some 20 unheard-of jobs, surtball, the 21st century game. and food from around the world will seem a little flat unless more can be added.
Will the Minister give a firm undertaking that the announcement about the dome's contents on 24 February will be made openly in a statement in the House, and not in some glitzy multi-media press conference elsewhere? The stark reality facing the Minister is that secrecy and arrogance carry their own penalties. If he had been open in answering the questions that we have been asking for months, he would not face reports such as that which appears in a national publication under the heading "Jobs for the Boys":
Eight months since his appointment, it is clear that the most feared member of Tony Blair's inner circle has used those powers of patronage to put business the way of a close associate of a major party backer.
I cannot say whether that story is true, but such allegations are the harvest of secrecy and arrogance.
We wish the project well, but we fear for it. If the Minister cannot come clean and reassure the millions of people who are concerned that public money is being wasted, the project may be doomed.

The Minister Without Portfolio (Mr. Peter Mandelson): If the speech by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) was to wish the project well, I shudder to think what he would sound like if he were attacking the millennium experience and what we are doing. He attacked the health and safety record. There have been three accidents on the site. One was a minor cut on an elbow on 1 August last year, and there were two examples of bruising: one when a dumper moved forward while someone was standing next to the wheel, and another when a person was standing beside a wheel that entered a rut. There is no health and safety problem at the site, and we are proud of that record.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser) on initiating the debate. He said that I would be hanged, but he is a little premature, because I do not feel so much lynched as liberated by his speech. The debate gives me the opportunity to file an encouraging progress report.
Construction is on time. If anything, it is ahead of time. Spending is within budget, costs are firmly under control, and the creative development of the dome's contents has leaped ahead. Arrangements for the national programme are well in hand. The millennium company is performing highly competently. It is doing a job of the utmost importance to the country, and it thoroughly deserves our support.
I am pleased to say that, of 99 construction contracts that have been let to date, 90 have been awarded to British companies or to the British arm of major international firms. That is a great tribute to British engineering and

construction genius, and represents an enormous return and benefit to many people and communities throughout the country.
Much has been said about alleged secrecy and lack of accountability—I notice the lack of time that I have been given to reply to the debate. The New Millennium Experience Company is accountable to Parliament in the same way as any other non-departmental public body. Unlike any other such body that I can think of, its affairs have been the subject of nearly 150 parliamentary questions since the summer. It has been subjected to a thorough inquiry by a Select Committee, to which I pay tribute. As the company's shareholder, I answer questions for 10 minutes a month.

Mr. John Hayes: rose—

Ms Diane Abbott: rose—

Mr. Mandelson: Perhaps my hon. Friends will forgive me if I do not give way.
It is worth taking a minute to remember where the project stood this time last year. In January 1997, the project did not even have planning permission. Work had not begun to clear the site of 150 years' worth of polluting chemicals. The company had a small board and an energetic chief executive, but little else—no staff, no money, no offices and no business plan.
It was courageous of the Conservative Government to take on such a bold and complex project. When we reviewed it in May, I make no apologies for saying that we thought hard about whether it could be delivered. We decided that it could be, and that it should be. I think that that was the right decision, as did the Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is a member.
That is enough of history: the debate should be about the future, and in addressing it I shall comment on the Opposition's role. The right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the Opposition representative, who spoke eloquently in the debate, has played a full, helpful and thoroughly constructive role. I pay tribute to his wisdom and vigour throughout, without which we would not be where we are. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not mind me quoting what he said recently about my role. He said:
I think that the Minister Without Portfolio is doing his job as well as it can be done.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I travel in hope that good will of that kind will extend to all wings of the Conservative party.
It is prudent for us all, and especially for Opposition Members, to remember that the millennium dome being constructed is exactly the same as the one that was conceived by the Conservative party. It is to the same plan; it has the same goals; the same company is building it; it has the same system of accountability, the same Mark McCormack, the same budget and costs, and the same revenue projections and halo effect for the national economy. There is just more progress in delivering it.
I accept that the Conservative party has nothing to thank me for, but I hope that Conservative Members can


find it in themselves on this issue to put country before party, and restore the bipartisan basis of the millennium celebration. I told the Select Committee:
if we fail to deliver it, we shall never be forgiven. If it succeeds, as I am confident it will, it will never be forgotten.
I want everyone, including those in the Conservative party to share in its success. I hope that they will not remove themselves from it.
The site at Greenwich is now clear, the dome is growing before our eyes, designers are working on the content, and, under the excellent management of the board and chief executive, the project is on time and on budget. The right hon. Member for Henley has testified to that.
When we decided in June to back the previous Government's decision on the millennium experience, it was on the basis of five clear commitments. They were, first, that it would cost no more to the taxpayer than the sum that had already been committed to prepare the site. We will stand by that commitment. The second commitment was that the contents would entertain and inspire, and they will.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Mandelson: In view of the time, I am sure that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way.
Our third commitment was that it would be a truly national event. It will be. Our fourth was that it will provide a lasting legacy—and it will—and the fifth was that the management structure of the company would be strengthened by the best creative and business talent

that was available. It has been so strengthened. Those commitments set a challenging agenda for the Government and the company, and in many ways the questions and issues that have been raised in debate focus on that agenda.
We have been asked about cost. The project is developing well within the set budget of £758 million. That is not all public or lottery money. Only about half that amount is lottery grant from the Millennium Commission.
As for content, it is true that "Guess what will be in the dome" has become something of a national sport. Much as I hate to spoil the nation's fun, we will be giving away yet more of the secrets, in February, when we unveil some of the designers' working models.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) rightly stressed the millennium's importance as a Christian anniversary. I assure the House that that will be reflected in the dome's contents and in the national programme.
In June, when I became shareholder, I felt that our greatest challenge was the national impact—how to engage and involve individuals and communities in a project whose physical focus was in Greenwich. We have been working very hard on that, and I should like to express my grateful thanks to my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport, for Education and Employment, for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland for their help and support in developing the national programme.
As every day passes, not only job creation is becoming clearer but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Road Safety

11 am

Mr. Michael Wills: I am very grateful for this opportunity to bring an important—but, unfortunately, not new—matter to the House's attention. Since 1992, as far as I can discover, the House has had 27 debates, 35 oral questions, 514 written questions and 21 early-day motions on road safety. Nevertheless, last year, 3,500 people lost their life on our roads. All of those people lost their lives tragically, and most of them did so avoidably.
Another 48,000 people were seriously injured on the roads, and, although there has been a decrease in fatalities in the past 10 years, the rate of decrease has slowed considerably in recent years. In the past three years, the figures have been virtually static. Since at least the early 1980s, there has been no significant change in the total number of injuries on our roads.
Perhaps that dreadful litany is becoming so familiar that people are becoming immune to it; they accept death on the roads as another fact of life. However, the figures are unacceptable, and we must keep reminding ourselves of that.
Throughout history, human beings have learnt how to do many wonderful things, but we have not yet learnt how to avoid each year more than 50,000 avoidable human tragedies. In 150 years, I believe that people will look back and wonder how we could have tolerated the situation for so long—just as we look back now and wonder how, 150 years ago, children were allowed to work down the mines or up chimneys. The dreadful situation cannot continue unchanged forever, because it is, literally, intolerable. However, until we do find ways of tackling it, thousands more lives will be lost, and even more lives will be wrecked.
Like so many hon. Members, perhaps the most heartbreaking cases that I have dealt with in my surgery have been those of relatives of victims of car crashes. How can we not respond to stories such as that of the man who came to me and told me how his wife was driving home with his daughter along a narrow country road, when a car driven on the wrong side of the road and way over the speed limit by a young man—who was not drunk—smashed into their car. His wife was taken from the car alive, but, unfortunately, she died a few minutes later on the grass verge in the arms of her daughter.
Such stories are all too familiar. In one awful moment, lives are changed for ever, devastated by a dreadful loss that those of us who have not experienced one can only imagine with awe. Their pain continues through every waking hour, although it is not only over the loss of someone whom they have loved—although, God knows, that is hard enough. Every one of them has told me that what hurts so much is the fact that their loss was so avoidable.
I asked for this debate for those reasons, and I am grateful for the opportunity to suggest some possible positive action. We will not be able to begin to change the situation until we understand why it persists.
No one could possibly be in favour of continuing such carnage, and many people daily continue to do their best to change the situation. Successive Governments have been committed to promoting road safety. The police do

their very best—and more. I have been struck by the heartfelt tributes paid by victims' relatives to the police's dedication and sensitivity in dealing with road accidents. Motoring and road safety organisations do admirable work in campaigning for change, in which they are supported by responsible businesses.
Why are we seemingly unable to make more progress in dealing with that blight on our society? There are no easy or simple answers, and I do not want to suggest that there are. There are many reasons for the appalling casualty levels on our roads, such as: momentary human error, which nothing will every completely eradicate; badly maintained vehicles; and dangerous roads and road conditions. Above all, however, it is clear that responsibility lies with dangerous human behaviour. If we are to change such behaviour, we must change our toleration of it.
Successful action has been taken in dealing with one specific form of dangerous behaviour: driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. We now have to tackle more effectively our toleration of all forms of dangerous driving. Clearly anyone who drinks and drives exposes himself and others to great risk; but surely a driver who aggressively speeds is equally culpable? Speeding has been shown to be a factor in more than a third of all accidents. Although the danger of speeding should be reflected in the sentences passed by courts, sadly, that does not seem to be happening.
Although I stress that the figures are not conclusive—they cannot be conclusive, because they involve difficult matters of the relative ease of proof—the courts seem to treat motoring offences causing death or bodily harm more seriously if drugs or alcohol are involved. A motorist is twice as likely to be acquitted of a motoring offence causing death or bodily harm if alcohol or drugs are not involved than if they are.
Why should dealing more severely with dangerous driving be axiomatically justifiable? Surely any person guilty of aggressive, dangerous behaviour should be treated as equally culpable. I cannot understand the logic of arguing that someone who causes death by driving aggressively is somehow less culpable than someone who causes death because he has drunk too much.
The issue of aggressive driving lies at the heart of the problem. Anyone who drives a car sees examples daily of such dangerous behaviour as speeding aggressively, tail-gating and reckless overtaking. The fact is that 80 per cent. of road deaths do not involve alcohol; they involve dangerous driving by sober people.
Characterising much of that dangerous driving is the type of aggressive behaviour biologically associated with young males. Of course not all men are dangerous drivers, just as all dangerous drivers are not men. Many women are dangerous drivers, and not all young men are dangerous drivers. Many dangerous drivers are older than 24. The facts, however, speak for themselves. A male driver is two and a half times more likely than a female driver to be involved in a road accident causing death or serious injury. A young male driver aged 17 is three times more likely than a 17-year-old female driver to be involved in a road accident causing death or serious injury.
Such differentials between men and women drivers are apparent regardless of how one considers the figures—whether in rates per thousand licence holders or rates


per thousand kilometres travelled. Moreover, the figures show also that male drivers are far mor1e likely than female drivers to have an accident when overtaking or going round a bend—a particularly avoidable type of accident, which often signals a particular aggression or recklessness. Significantly, there is a steady decline in the likelihood of that type of accident occurring when a male driver is over 24 years of age.
In the 21-to-24 age group, more than twice as many male drivers as female drivers have accidents overtaking. A male driver aged 21 to 24 is 80 per cent. more likely than a female driver in that age group to be involved in a single-vehicle accident—another particularly avoidable type of accident.
The figures suggest that, as much as anything else, attitude—the aggression that is associated with but, unfortunately, not confined to the behaviour of young men—causes death and injury on the roads. If we can stop the carnage caused by testosterone-crazed young men and those who act like them, we will not stop death on the roads, but we will make a significant start in reducing the current obscene levels.
How can that be done? Many measures have been suggested by campaigning organisations, and I see merit in many of them. Today, I shall focus on a few that could help bring about the sea change in culture which is so desperately needed.
We need to send clearer and stronger signals that dangerous driving will not be tolerated. In the past, such signals have not been as strong and clear as they could have been because we have a central ambivalence about the motor car. The motor car has been a great force for personal liberation in the 20th century; it has brought the freedom of individual and autonomous travel to millions of people. For the past 50 years, more and more people have enjoyed the great benefits that motor cars can bring. Now, we are coming to terms with the costs.
Environmental consequences are now central to Government and public policy, but unfortunately the same does not appear to be true of the role of the car as a lethal weapon. Every year, there are five times as many road deaths as murders, yet the Home Office does not appear to consider that road safety should be a core activity for the police. Relatives of victims frequently complain that the system is too lenient. Constituents of mine who have suffered such tragedies all complain bitterly—and with evidence—about how lightly the death of their loved ones seems to be treated by the legal system. There is evidence to bear them out.
Between 1993 and 1995, for example, more than 25 per cent. of those convicted for causing death by dangerous or careless driving escaped a custodial sentence. All too often, the treatment of driving offences seems to be governed by the feeling of "There but for the grace of God go I", and its companion instinct that driving offences should not be treated as severely as other offences.
That attitude perilously conflates two quite different phenomena: on one hand, the momentary lapse, of which we are all capable, and on the other, the persistent dangerous driving of a minority which is responsible for the majority of serious crashes. All too often, the belief that we are all capable of occasional error seems to

mitigate the treatment of criminally dangerous driving, which is quite different and could and should be seen as such. We need to send out different signals. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to doing so. I shall suggest just a few measures which might help.
I suggest three reforms of the licensing system. The age threshold for a driving licence should be raised from 17 to 18. Figures show that casualties decrease with age. That partly reflects the fact that inexperience is an important factor in road casualties—the more one drives, the safer one gets—but age is significant. The figures are clear. In 1991, for example, the rate of casualties for male drivers of 100 million vehicle km fell 40 per cent. between the ages of 17 and 18. It fell a further third between the ages of 18 and 19, and a further 15 per cent. between the ages of 19 and 20. The rate for those aged between 21 and 24 was half that for those aged between 25 and 34.
Driving experience alone cannot account for that steady decline over age. Maturity, too, must be a critical factor. If we believe that someone is not sufficiently mature to exercise the right to vote until they are 18 years old, I see no reason why we should believe that someone is mature enough to take control of a lethal weapon before that age. Changing the age threshold would send an important signal about how seriously we should take the act of driving.
In the same spirit, I suggest that everyone should take a driving test every five years. That would be a powerful discipline for us all. A five-yearly assessment of our ability to drive responsibly would remind everyone on the roads of the fact that they are in charge of a lethal weapon—something that all too many forget.
The third reform is minor but culturally significant. We should take action to tackle the problem of motorbike deliveries. At the moment, anyone who wants to deliver pizzas, be a courier or undertake any other commercial activity on a motorbike can do so without having to pass a driving test. Although people are required to undergo compulsory basic training, they do not have to pass a driving test before they take on work that involves travelling long distances under great pressure on roads on which they are most likely to have accidents. What kind of signal does that send? If we are serious about improving safety on the roads, a minimum requirement should be to ensure that those whose work renders them more likely to be involved in accidents have passed a test of driving competence.
My second area of suggestions relates to the policing of road safety. We need to give the police more support. Road safety must be made a core priority for the police. What message is sent by the fact that it is not? We must give them the tools to do the job. Every policeman to whom I have spoken has asked for more speed cameras. Let us give them such cameras. The Association of Chief Police Officers has made an eminently sensible suggestion about how to pay for the cameras: that an administrative charge be levied for each convicted offender. Implementing that need not breach any Treasury principle or create any precedent. All the evidence suggests how effective an increase in the number of speed cameras would be in disciplining dangerous driving.
I should like to suggest two changes to the legislative framework. This area is critical. Law and its implementation sends powerful messages about a


society's values. The road safety organisation, Brake, has suggested that, where death or injury has been directly caused by dangerous driving or by using a vehicle in a dangerous condition, there should be only a charge either of manslaughter or grievous bodily harm, and that the option of the less serious charge of careless driving should be removed. I support that proposal.
The legal leap between a charge of causing death by dangerous driving and manslaughter is not great, but the signal that such a change would convey is. It would signal that killing someone with a car is not somehow different from killing someone in another way so that it merits a different charge. It is exactly the same and should be treated in exactly the same way.
I recognise that some may argue that juries would be reluctant to convict if any more serious charges were available, but that argument does not stand up to close scrutiny. Even if juries were less likely to convict, it would only be because they did not believe that the offences were sufficiently serious to merit such punishment. How are we ever going to change such an attitude, which—I hope—I have demonstrated is profoundly wrong, if courts persistently offer offenders no more than the traditional equivalent of a slap on the wrist?
Whatever sentences the courts impose, they need to send a clear signal that there can be no universal right to drive without a clear acceptance of the serious responsibilities that go with it. If individuals reject the responsibilities, they should forfeit the right. My proposal is simply that, for anyone convicted of dangerous driving, whether or not it results in death or injury, there should be an automatic ban from driving for three years. Any three such convictions should result in a lifetime ban—three strikes and out.
I recognise that some people may object to the proposal because they are worried by the removal of the traditional discretion in sentencing, but the proposal maintains such discretion in every area other than in respect of the licence. Others may worry about severe penalties being imposed for momentary lapse—the "There but for the grace of God go I" argument—but the jury would retain the discretion to decide whether a person is guilty, and the sentence would be able to distinguish between a one-off error and persistently dangerous behaviour.
It may also be argued that there is little point in banning more people from driving when such bans are routinely imposed. Every year, the number of those found guilty of driving while disqualified amounts to about 25 per cent. of those disqualified in that year. That is not an argument against extending driving bans but an argument for tightening enforcement and the penalties for driving while disqualified. Perhaps automatic confiscation of the cars of those found guilty of such an offence might encourage greater compliance with the law.
For those who complain about such measures on libertarian grounds, I suggest that they are shown a video of interviews with relatives of victims of such dangerous driving, which—I hope—would encourage them to make a clearer distinction between liberty and licence. I suspect that, after a few examples of such lifetime bans, we would start to see a new spirit of discipline in drivers who currently feel that it is quite acceptable to tail-gate for 30 miles down a motorway or overtake at 50 mph on a narrow winding country road.
Of course I recognise that change will not come overnight, but such measures, and others like them which have been proposed by those who are very concerned with such issues, could begin to make a difference. The reforms, unlike so many others, do not run into the familiar problem of costing money. The long-term economics all in favour of such changes. In 1996, the cost to society of road casualties was calculated by the Department of Transport to total £11 billion a year. That is £3.3 billion for accidents causing a fatality, £4.8 billion for accidents causing a serious injury, and £2.75 billion for accidents causing a slight injury. Just think what a fraction of that—even a 10 per cent. reduction—could do for our pensioners, our schools and our health service. Think of the difference that that would make to the 1,500 people who would otherwise be dead and the 24,000 who would otherwise be seriously injured.
Every debate and every question in this place that does not achieve a significant reduction in those dreadful statistics diminishes the stature of the House. What use is Parliament if we cannot save those whom we represent from such avoidable and needless tragedies? Whatever the Government's view of my proposals, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us real hope that we can make a difference, and make those dreadful statistics a thing of the past.

Mr. Charles Wardle: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on obtaining the debate. I associate myself with many of his remarks, particularly what he said about grieving families. I am sure that we all have experience of tragic situations such as those that he described.
I should like to raise two matters briefly. First, had I not been here this morning, I would have been in my constituency for the local launch by the Highways Agency of the Government's 1998 child pedestrian safety campaign at Mountfield and Whatlington primary school at John's Cross on the A21, where the speed limit has recently been halved because of the need to restrict speeding.
The Highways Agency, the county council and Sussex police have all had to contend with the dilemma of needing to keep traffic moving down the A21 while also putting sensible restrictions in place, as has been done at Hurst Green, a little further north on the A21. The community is relieved that that has now been accomplished at John's Cross as well. I hope that the campaign is successful throughout the country. It is vital that children learn at the earliest possible age the importance of road safety, starting as pedestrians.
My second point touches on the kind of case to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. I was approached last week by two constituents—Mr. and Mrs. Gildea of Battle—whose son Christian was killed on 6 December while cycling back to Battle from the Conquest hospital. Christian Gildea, who was in his 20s, had obtained a degree and then decided to become a doctor. He started from scratch, taking two fresh A-levels at Hastings college. To keep himself in employment and get some experience, he found work at the Conquest hospital. He cycled to Hastings college and to the hospital. He was killed by a young driver who admitted that he had been travelling at 60 mph and had lost control of his vehicle. That young driver, who is no doubt as shocked as anyone by what happened, was fined for careless driving.
Mr. and Mrs. Gildea asked me to press for cyclists on the highway to wear helmets and illuminated flashes. I hope that the Minister will consider that. I am sure that she is already thinking about it. Mr. and Mrs. Gildea pointed out poignantly that wearing a helmet would not have saved their son, but they would like to work for road safety for others, particularly young cyclists, as a memorial to their son. I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the wearing of helmets by youngsters doing paper rounds or anybody of any age on a bicycle on the highway. If helmets can save one life or illuminated flashes can cause one motorist to avoid a cyclist, they must be worth while.

Mr. David Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on securing a debate on such an important subject, and on his thoughtful contribution. I particularly appreciate what he said about the relatives of people killed in accidents. We should bear in mind that every death on our roads is needless and tragic, causing great pain to the bereaved families. I appreciated his call for the criminal legal system to take such deaths more seriously and to reflect the pain that we are all caused in the charges and the sentences.
I initiated a similar debate last November, which makes this the second debate on road safety in just three months. That shows how seriously the House takes the subject—and so it should. The number of deaths and injuries on our roads is still too high. For every murder victim, six people die on our roads.
In November I made two requests to the Minister. The first was for a lowering of the blood alcohol concentration limit from 80 mg per 100 ml of blood to 50 mg. The second was for the police to be helped with the cost of speed cameras through an administration fee added to the fines for speeders—a request repeated by my hon. Friend this morning. It has been pleasing to hear public statements since then that the Government are considering both issues. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us about progress on them.
The number of deaths caused by drinking and driving fell sharply in the 1980s, but in recent years the death toll has remained stubbornly at about 10 every week. We can do more to reduce the loss of life caused by drinking and driving by lowering the limit and enforcing it effectively. Happily, I am not alone in believing that reducing the limit from 80 mg to 50 mg will save lives. Professor Richard Allsop, of University college London, was quoted in The Independent on 19 January as saying that a reduction of 100 fatalities a year could be achieved by it.
There is much debate about whether we should introduce random breath testing or an unfettered discretion for the police on breath testing. That is an important debate, but I shall not delay the House with the subtleties of it. It is important for drivers to know that drinking and driving will be detected.
Last Christmas was the first when all 43 police forces in England and Wales routinely tested all drivers involved in road crashes. That was not just a Christmas campaign—the practice is here to stay all year. The message to those who take the risk of drinking and driving is clear: "Your crime will be detected and you will be punished."
My hon. Friend also talked about driving under the influence of drugs. That is the subject of a three-year research programme organised by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Police officers regularly tell me that the difficulty is detection at the road side. Drug-influenced driving is not as simple as the breath test for alcohol. I hope that the research will lead to the development of devices to assist the police on that.
My hon. Friend talked in great detail about the problems of speeding. As he said, research suggests that speeding is a contributory factor in one third of road crashes. Speed may be excessive by being beyond the legal limit or simply inappropriately fast for the conditions. Reducing speeding will cut the number of road crashes, saving lives and lessening the number of injuries. This has been proved in Stafford—the town which I have the honour to represent—where a vigorous speed reduction policy, including the widespread use of speed cameras, has reduced road crashes and injuries; hence my interest in helping the police to mount and maintain such effective enforcement. If the police receive an administration fee, charged with every fine imposed for speeding, they could uphold the law more comprehensively.
Speed also kills children, who are particularly vulnerable to death and injury on our roads. Usually, the danger arises in close proximity to their homes. Therefore, I particularly welcome recent Government initiatives aimed at protecting our children. I am pleased that this year's transport policies and programmes give priority to safer routes to school projects. These promote safety engineering schemes in the vicinity of schools, such as self-enforcing 20 mph zones and traffic calming measures. In Stafford, the borough council is concentrating very limited resources on such schemes.
I am pleased also, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) mentioned, that the Government are retaining the successful Hedgehog education campaign for children, with the message "Stop, Look, Listen, Live." I also wish to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton)—who is not here today—who yesterday proposed her Home Zones Bill.
I sometimes feel that road safety lacks the priority that it deserves. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon pointed out, it is not a core national priority for the police to tackle traffic matters. I am heartened by this second debate in the House within three months, and by the Government initiatives that I have mentioned. I hope that we are getting across to the public the message that alongside our right to drive is our responsibility; a responsibility to ourselves and to others. Reducing death and injury on our roads is a collective responsibility.

Mr. Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on raising this issue—an issue that has probably touched us all. My grandmother was killed in a road accident. She was old and could not see or hear well. She stepped off the pavement and, unfortunately, was hit by a car. The dad of my best friend at school was killed in a car crash, as was the son of close friends of the family. The issue has probably affected each and every one of us.
Road safety is a matter for the Government, local government, the police, voluntary groups and schools—often working in partnership. However, there are some things that we as hon. Members can do to improve road safety. I should like to run through a couple of those.
I arrived here breathless and in a hurry at 11 o'clock because I had been outside with Friends of the Earth, which is publicising the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, which comes to the House on Friday. The more hon. Members who are present to show their support for that private Member's Bill the better, and I welcome the Government's support for it.
The Government can encourage Members of Parliament to use their bicycles, thereby reducing the number of cars on the road. I have asked whether a cycling allowance could be made available to hon. Members who use their bikes for parliamentary business, and I understand that that suggestion is under review. I hope that the Government will respond positively. Anyone on a bike means one less journey in a car, and that helps road safety.
Hon. Members have mentioned speed cameras. My party's view is that responsibility for them should lie with local authorities, particularly if it involves an automated process. I should like local authorities to have the power to collect fines, as the system would be more effective for that. According to constituents who write to me regularly, local councils in London are all too effective at enforcing parking regulations, now that they are responsible for traffic law enforcement.
As well as helping to improve road safety, road safety measures will help the Government to meet their commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent. Law reforms have been mentioned, and there is a case to be answered in terms of the appropriateness of fines. Is it right that the fixed penalty fine for speeding is less than the fine for dropping litter? There is perhaps a question mark over the value judgments that we are making on road safety.
In one matter—the "Speed Kills" campaign recently launched by the Government—better co-ordination would help road safety. My local superintendent said that the first he knew about the campaign was when he saw posters for it. Perhaps he had not read the correspondence, or perhaps the information had not been circulated, but there was not the co-ordination between the police and the Home Office that existed over the drink-drive campaign. That may have been a localised problem, but there may be a need for greater co-ordination between Departments on that issue.
I welcome the importance that the Government attach to road safety and the fact that the Labour party manifesto gave priority to road safety. It stated that cycling and walking must be made safer, especially around schools. However, the budget allocated for local safety schemes has been reduced from £60 million to £50 million in the next financial year—something at which the Government must look.
I have one further concrete and effective proposal for improving road safety. It relates to speed, which, as we have heard, is a contributory factor in up to one third of accidents. The briefing on the subject—which many hon. Members will have received—states that, for every 1 mph reduction in average traffic speeds, deaths are reduced by 7 per cent. and casualties by 5 per cent. I suggest that the

Government act to stop the sale of speed camera detectors, which are on sale openly and, in some cases, illegally in Tottenham Court road. My researcher can give the Minister the addresses of the premises that are selling speed camera detectors.
I have here a flyer for a company, which was sent to me by a constituent, Mrs. Houghton, who asked me to investigate the matter. The flyer gives details of speed camera detectors, and describes features such as a one-mile range for detecting cameras and the fact that it can pick up radar.
I am pleased to say that the Advertising Standards Authority has investigated and found against that company. Hopefully, it is no longer putting out flyers that alarm drivers by asking what they would do if they could not drive their car, and adding that speeding attracts fines of up to £2,500. The flyer encourages people to buy a product that will help them to break the law. In that case, action has been taken, but if action is taken at the point where the flyer has been distributed, it is too late. It will have gone through people's doors, and people will be aware of the product.

Mr. Alan Clark: Only a Liberal could argue for making illegal something that encourages one to remain within the law. The hon. Gentleman said that the detector would make it easier for people to break the law, but surely the whole point is that it gives prior warning and that only a complete lunatic would then proceed to break the law.

Mr. Brake: Hon. Members will judge for themselves whether people purchasing the detector are trying to stay within the law or will use it to break the law.
The Home Office view is not terribly helpful, because it judges that primary legislation, which would be needed to deal with the problem, is not at present justified. My view is that the Home Office should take a much firmer line on any such product and should ensure that it cannot be sold openly and, in some cases, illegally, in Tottenham Court road. I hope that the Minister will respond positively on that issue and on the other points that I have raised.

Mr. Christopher Chope: It is a disappointment that there have been fewer contributions to this debate, on road safety, than there were on the previous one, on the millennium dome, but, for a Government who have gained themselves the reputation of never answering any questions, this is a great opportunity, because the Minister will have a substantial period in which to answer some of the points that have been made. Perhaps, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will allow her to range a little more widely and answer questions that were not answered in yesterday's debates by other members of her ministerial team.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter again, and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on the way in which he introduced the debate. He used statistics to support his argument and expressed concern that still too many people are killed on our roads, as indeed they are. We all know people who have suffered the effects of road tragedies.
We must none the less keep the matter in context: fewer people are killed on our roads now than in 1926, when statistics were first collected. The figure has been coming down steadily over the past 15 years of Conservative government. Before we propose, for example, the idea of raising from 17 to 18 the age at which people would be allowed to start driving, let us think about whether the countries where the minimum age is higher have a better road safety record.

Mr. Wills: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there has been no significant change—1,000 or 2,000 out of 300,000—throughout the period of Conservative government in the number of injuries on our roads, and that, in the past three years, the number of fatalities has hardly decreased at all and seems to have reached a plateau?

Mr. Chope: No, I do not accept that. The number of people killed continues to fall, and the number of serious injuries has decreased significantly. The number of slight injuries has not decreased significantly, but I understood that the burden of the hon. Gentleman's concerns was about deaths and serious injuries, because only those could possibly justify an enormous intrusion into the freedom of 17-year-olds to begin driving.
On the continent, where many young people are not allowed to drive until they are 18, do they have better road casualty figures? On the continent, where there are nominally lower breathalyser limits, do they have better figures? Elsewhere in the world, are the figures better? The answer is no.
In the 10 years to 1996, the number of people killed on our roads fell by 33 per cent., despite an increase in motor traffic of 27 per cent. The number of breath tests administered rose by no less than 169 per cent., to more than 133,000, but the number of people failing those tests fell by 27 per cent., to just over 7,000.
In Great Britain, we have six road deaths a year per 100,000 population. I agree that that is six too many. In Austria, however, there are 15 deaths per 100,000 population; in Belgium, 14; in France, 15; in Germany, 12; in Greece, 21; in the Irish Republic, 12; in Italy, 12; in Luxembourg, thought by many to be the best European country of all, 19; in Portugal, 29; and in Spain, 15. All those countries have a significantly worse record than we have and they are improving, if at all, at a far slower rate than us.
I urge the hon. Member for North Swindon not to say that we should adopt a policy willy-nilly simply because it is adopted in the rest of Europe. I urge caution on him and suggest that our policy of education coupled with regulation has been extremely successful. We have educated people into recognising that, if they drive with excess alcohol levels, they are likely to be in an accident that could have dire consequences for themselves and others, and we have a strict law to reinforce that.
We know from the tragedy in Paris last August and its aftermath that in France they have nominally tighter breath test limits but a very weak system of penalties for those who are in breach of them. That may be one of the reasons why they have a substantially worse road casualty record than we do. The analogy is not only with countries

in the rest of Europe but with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America and Japan, all of which have significantly more road deaths per 100,000 population than we do.
I understand that the Government intend to accept, almost without consideration, the European Community line on the rights of people who suffer from diabetes to drive motor vehicles. The matter has been of considerable concern to many people, and there has been correspondence from the British Diabetic Association asking the Government to consider the facts and the evidence, but the Government have effectively said, "Well, this is what the European Commission says, so it must be a good thing and we must adopt it."
That is not the right approach for a responsible Government to take. They should consider the issue on its merits and not be so arrogant, just as they should consider beef on the bone on its merits and not ride roughshod over the humiliating defeat that they suffered in the other place last night.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is it not the case that the British Diabetic Association considers the evidence concerning diabetics to be flawed and has produced evidence supporting exactly the opposite case to that which the Government have accepted? There seems to be no consideration of that.

Mr. Chope: I agree. It is a matter of great concern that the Government do not seem to be prepared to engage in a dialogue with the British Diabetic Association and get to the core of the issue, with the consequence that many people who have hitherto been able to drive light goods vehicles will no longer be able to do so, because of a European directive.
Interestingly, that European directive permits of exceptions
only in very exceptional circumstances … and then only when duly justified by authorised medical opinion".
So there is a way out for the Government in discussing the matter with medical experts and the British Diabetic Association. However, the Government are not using that loophole. The Minister for Roads responded to my letter, and no doubt responded in similar terms to other hon. Members, by saying:
The advice of our Panel is that there are no exceptional cases which medical opinion would recognise as being lower risk than others".
That is an extraordinary statement, and it makes a mockery of the arrangements that are being phased in to make existing drivers subject to the new regulations. If the consequences for road safety are as dire as the Minister for Roads would have us believe, there should be an outright and immediate ban. The fact that there is not such a ban on all the drivers affected tells me that there is scope for dealing with cases in a much more sympathetic way than the Government have done so far.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made an exemplary speech. He had a couple of points to make and he made them clearly and succinctly. The Conservative Government put a lot of effort into reducing the rate of child fatalities. Although our record on road safety compares favourably with that of other countries, our record on child injuries and fatalities is worse. So, on the basis of good benchmarking


practice, the Conservative Government decided to tackle that issue. Road safety campaigns were directed to child road safety. When I was the Minister responsible, I was much involved in the campaign to encourage parents and children to wear cycle helmets. Texaco supported a national campaign with the slogan "Children should be seen and not hurt." That altered the climate of opinion. Now we see many more cyclists, especially children, wearing cycle helmets.
Helmets are no panacea, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said. They do not prevent every casualty, but they ensure that many fewer people suffer severe injury if they fall off their bicycle in a collision or as a result of riding into one of the increasingly large number of potholes that are appearing in our roads as a result of the Government's neglect of standards of road maintenance. My hon. Friend made some excellent points about the need to get even more cyclists wearing helmets.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), the spokesman for the Liberal party on these issues, was rightly taken to task by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark). More and more controls are what the Liberal party is all about. We heard last night in the debate on the London Underground that it wants to impose another £1 billion of taxes on Londoners. Yet I know from visiting some Liberal-controlled constituencies in London that the standard of road maintenance in those boroughs leaves a lot to be desired.

Mr. Brake: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, on an issue such as road safety, we should take a non-partisan approach, and that the issue is too important to be treated in a political manner?

Mr. Chope: I am not trying to make party political points, but this Chamber is a political chamber. In so far as we have any influence over the way in which resources are allocated and how local authorities decide to allocate resources, all of us in the Chamber today who care about road safety should say, "Let us invest more resources in the maintenance of our highway infrastructure. Let us repair those pavements, get rid of potholes in the roads and invest in road safety measures that reduce further the number of casualties on our roads."
In my local area, Christchurch, a big issue is running in the local newspapers. Bournemouth council has announced that it intends to ban cyclists from using the Wessex way. There has been a long-running campaign with the local newspaper because there have been several horrible, fatal accidents involving cyclists on that stretch of road. The cycling fraternity are understandably concerned. They want to know what alternative arrangements will be made for cyclists. Cyclists feel that the council is giving in to the pressure from lorry and other traffic. There has been no effective response from the local authority on how it intends to accommodate the legitimate needs of cyclists who would otherwise use that route.
More investment is needed to solve that problem. I shall repeatedly make the point from this Bench, until Ministers understand, that we need to invest in road safety measures more of the money that motorists pay in taxation. I hope that the Minister will say that she has now accepted that argument.
The Minister is much accustomed to responding to parliamentary questions by saying, "I shall answer this question shortly." She did so on Monday in response to a

question from me about the deaths of two cyclists on the track of the Sheffield supertram. In my submission, that is a serious situation. A new and much-vaunted form of transport seems to have been designed in such a way as to make it difficult for cyclists to avoid getting their wheels caught up in the tram tracks. I hope that the Government will investigate the matter seriously. Although it may be a good thing to have public transport, it is not good if the consequence is to put cyclists in jeopardy.
I shall not be tempted to go into the saga of the waste of so much money on the supertram project by the local authorities in Sheffield. Nor shall I ask the Government how they intend to deal with the likely consequences of that expenditure—an increase in council tax of £40 a year for 30 years for every resident living in the four boroughs affected. However, if the Minister wishes to deal with those points, we shall welcome her responses.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington referred to the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill, which is to come before the House on Friday. He said that it had been launched today. It is matter of great regret that such an important Bill has been published only two days before it is due to be debated. The fact that it would have a prominent position in the private Member's ballot was known more than six months ago, and it seems to have taken all that time for the details of the Bill to be prepared. We now have a couple of days before it comes up for debate, and we are told that it is to be published today. Contrary to previous hints, we have heard that the Government will accept the Bill. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that and, in so doing, say whether she thinks that the Bill will contribute to further improvements in road safety.
Friends of the Earth claims that the Bill will save our children by cutting traffic. However, parents seem to think that the way to protect their children from traffic and to make their journeys to school safer is by taking them in the car rather than leaving them to walk or cycle. Ergo, cutting traffic would not result in fewer children being at risk from being injured on the roads. Certainly that is not the verdict of parents. I shall welcome any observations that the hon. Lady has on that.

Mr. Kidney: With regard to the knotty problem of children being safe if they walk or cycle to school, parents' experience is that those are not safe forms of transport, and that has led more of them to put children in the back of the car to take them to school. The hon. Gentleman referred to greater investment in safety for cyclists in particular, so clearly he understands that, if we are forced to make less use of the car, it should follow that we must be forced to find more investment for the alternatives.
Secondly, another aspect of road safety is the problem of fumes from cars and the growing incidence of asthma in recent years. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that reduction in traffic would at least be beneficial to future generations of children if they experience lower levels of asthma as a result?

Mr. Chope: I agree that the reduction in noxious emissions from motor vehicles will be beneficial, but we should not forget that that can be achieved even with a constant level of traffic through the application of new technology, and that is what is happening. That is why,


even with traffic levels as they are, and they are projected to grow, the total amount of noxious emissions from that level of traffic will fall during the next 10 or 15 years. Beyond that, there is a problem that must be addressed. let us not think that the only way to reduce noxious emissions is to reduce traffic. We can reduce the noxious emissions from each vehicle.
We also have the anomaly that people are concerned about their children's road safety, yet too many children on the journey to school in the car do not wear seat belts. That is a tragedy. Many parents have not yet got the message that their children should wear seat belts whether they are in the front or the back of the vehicle. That is a matter of education as much as enforcement. The Government could put some effort into one of their next road safety campaigns to re-educate parents about the merits of their children wearing seat belts.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on introducing again in the Chamber the exceedingly important issue of road safety. He referred to the number of times and the variety of ways in which the House has debated road safety. This is the second time in three months that we have debated the issue on a Wednesday morning, and I make no complaint about that.
My hon. Friend seems to feel that there is a kind of passive acceptance in Britain on road safety matters; but there is a rising tide of concern throughout Britain about transport issues generally, which is why the Government are so committed to introducing an integrated transport strategy—on road safety matters in particular.
Despite the United Kingdom's good road safety record as compared with other countries—a point detailed by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) via the list method—by the time we finish our debate this morning, in all probability five people will have been killed and 60 seriously injured on our roads. I have little doubt that all will regard that as a salutary reminder of how much remains to be done.
On 15 October we announced that we had begun work to devise a road safety strategy and a casualty reduction target for the coming decade. Work is now well under way, and we are trying to develop our strategy in collaboration with others who are active in road safety—local authorities, the police and independent experts—so that we can collect the available ideas informed by experience and expertise.
We trust that there will be wide consultation and are discussing with the Local Government Association and others how that can best be conducted. Road safety is a topic with a particularly strong local element and with local reverberations throughout communities because most casualties happen on local roads. Motorway crashes may grab the headlines, but the terrible tragedies all too often happen locally, as all hon. Members well know from their constituents and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon so poignantly reminded us today, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), whose own family has had dreadful personal

experience. Our purpose is to apply properly thought through ideas that will have a practical effect in reducing road casualties.
The United Kingdom now holds the presidency of the European Union, and many member states are concerned, as we are, about road safety. Each member state can learn lessons from others, and the Commission proposes to help by collating Unionwide experience and expertise to enhance and ease co-operation. Road safety must be driven by local circumstances because solutions which have worked in one country may not work in another. Nevertheless, it makes sense to share knowledge, and we support the Commission's efforts to disseminate best practice.
In April, we shall be providing a platform for a Commission-funded programme to persuade people, among other things, to wear their seat belts. The UK has a good record on the wearing of front seat belts but not as regards rear seat belts, which are also an essential safety measure. There will be two conferences, one on safe driving and the other on road safety education. It is no coincidence that the emphasis of both conferences is clearly on the young driver. One of our greatest challenges is to reduce the accident involvement of novice drivers, many of whom are young. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon was right to point out the cultural and social aspects of that problem. New drivers have more accidents for two reasons: the first is inexperience, which may well be improved by better training and testing; the second is irresponsibility, as my hon. Friend said.
We now know a great deal about new drivers, thanks to a large study conducted by the Transport Research Laboratory of nearly 30,000 drivers who passed their driving test on one of four dates in November 1988 and July 1989. Of those candidates, 18 per cent. had at least one damage-only or injury accident in the first year after passing their test; 6 per cent. of those accidents involved an injury. The study also found that far more of the drivers who had fixed penalty tickets or summonses were involved in accidents. That is why it is important to impress on them the need to obey traffic laws such as speed limits. It underlines the fact that attitudes are as important as skills.
Many young male drivers in particular are extremely good at manoeuvring their vehicles but, because of their attitudes, they are a hazard to themselves and a menace to all other road users. It is that bad driving behaviour that we need to curb. The Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995 is a start. The Act revokes the licences of drivers who tot up six or more penalty points within two years of passing the driving test. It came into operation last June, so it is too early to say how it is operating.
Several restrictions on new and young drivers were discussed by the previous Government in the 1993 "New Driver Safety" consultation paper, which concluded that such restrictions would either be impracticable for Great Britain, bordering on the unenforceable, or have heavy social costs. Most had major cost implications for the Government, or, if self-financing, for the drivers themselves. However, we were not elected simply to reinforce the conclusions reached by the previous Government and we are prepared to look at the measures afresh if they seem likely to promise casualty reductions. I trust that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon.
One of those measures was to put back the time at which a person could take a practical driving test to their 18th birthday—a proposal mentioned by my hon. Friend. The conclusion in 1993 was that there was no clear case for doing so. It will be a matter to be addressed in our road safety strategy, but we must recognise that, regrettably, some people are still dependent on being able to drive to get work. We are therefore not talking exclusively about a road safety issue—the point underlines this country's urgent need for a properly integrated transport policy. Research is continuing and any new policy must take the latest findings into account, but all the research so far in this area leads us to the same conclusion—that irresponsibility is a major cause of accidents.
Whatever legal limits we impose—and they must be credible and enforceable—it is attitudes that we need to change. My hon. Friend referred to sentencing policy and the attitudes of juries. I am straying off my departmental territory in this respect, but he raises an important point. The courts are composed of people just like us and not necessarily professional lawyers. Juries and, I dare say, many magistrates are people just like us and have similar views on society. They say to themselves, "This young man is accused of dangerous driving, but perhaps he just chanced his arm and was unlucky, so we shall bring in a verdict of careless driving and pass a light sentence." The police or the Crown Prosecution Service may take the view that they will never make a dangerous driving charge stick, so they opt for charges of careless driving.
I admit that all that is speculation, but my Department and the Home Office intend to conduct real research into developments since the Road Traffic Act 1991 was passed—a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) referred in our previous debate on this issue. We must arrange matters so that the proper level of criticism and opprobrium is brought down on the heads of those who, in many instances, have caused death or serious injury and whose gross lack of responsibility must be highlighted.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon raised the issue of re-testing. There is already an element of re-testing, either of new drivers who offend, or of drivers who have been convicted of dangerous driving offences, or of drivers who are, at a court's discretion, ordered to take a re-test. That illustrates the point about targeting: massive costs would be involved in re-testing everybody in the way that some—although not, I hasten to add, my hon. Friend—have suggested.
We know that casualty accidents are caused by specific groups of drivers, and it is our belief that we should be targeting them. There is no real evidence yet that older drivers are substantially more accident-prone than others. We shall, however, need to consider the matter because there will be many more older drivers in 15 years or so as the population ages and—crucially—as more of them have driving licences. However, testing and re-testing are not necessarily a good way of detecting irresponsibility, and to fail someone without objective evidence of bad driving would put a massive burden on driving examiners.
My hon. Friend referred to the police objectives set by the Home Secretary every year. Various interests have been pressing successive occupants of that office to make road policing a key objective. Last November, my right

hon. Friend went further in that direction than his predecessors had done. His letter to chief constables said:
Traffic policing is a central part of the police's responsibilities for maintaining law and order and preventing and deterring crime and reducing death and injury on the roads. I will therefore expect traffic policing to play a full part in achieving my overall objectives for the police service, particularly in relation to community safety and crime reduction, and in achieving a safer environment on the roads.
I would also draw attention to our objective of promoting community safety, which encompasses much of the bad behaviour we have been discussing and which brings me to the subject of road rage. It is not a term I like, nor a definition that I would necessarily accept. The term can be perceived as trivialising what we would normally describe as murder or grievous bodily harm. It is as if driving on the roads is some drug taken in all innocence which takes away responsibility for our own actions. There is no excuse for such behaviour.
For the ordinary motorist, aggressive driving usually manifests itself in dangerous driving practices, such as following vehicles too closely, cutting in on other drivers and speeding. Such driving practices often cause accidents. Curiously, researchers have found that some normally calm people admit to losing their tempers when driving, but that some normally angry people are calmer in that situation. As yet, nobody knows why that is so.
Several hon. Members mentioned speed cameras, which are indeed a potent weapon against people who break the speed limit. They are also proved to reduce accidents. We need more of them, and we need the resources to process the results. We are considering carefully the idea that at least some of the revenue from fines, or a separate administrative charge, should be used to finance cameras and the subsequent issue of fixed penalty notices. However, behind that action there remains the need to secure much more widespread observance of limits. It is not only young male tearaways who are to blame: 70 per cent. of people exceed the 30 mph limit and they cannot all be young men, unless the population has changed dramatically and in an exceedingly short time.
I should also refer to a matter raised in the previous debate on this subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman)—the advertising of new cars. That is very relevant to the attitudes which my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon rightly identifies as a danger. The House will know that there are codes of practice for printed advertising, run by the Advertising Standards Authority, and for television advertising, run by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Those codes are aimed, among other things, at advertisements that appear to endorse or promote irresponsible driving or irresponsible attitudes towards driving. That is a matter of some interest in other EU member states. With car manufacturers and others increasingly addressing international markets, Community action is sensible. So the Commission, supported by the UK Government, is trying to broker a Europewide voluntary code of practice.
I urge all hon. Members to refer bad advertising to the ASA or the IBA, whichever is appropriate. My noble Friend Baroness Hayman has done so in respect of two recent advertisements: one for the Volkswagen Passat was withdrawn and the other for the Honda Civic Vti was modified. The more such action is taken by responsible


people, the more notice advertisers will take, because it costs their clients money if they have to withdraw advertisements in those circumstances.
The House also discussed drink-driving in our previous debate and hon. Members will know that we shall shortly be consulting on a wide range of measures aimed at further reducing the number of accidents in which a driver or a rider has been drinking—a decision I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and others will welcome. I should prefer not to anticipate the outcome of that consultation at this stage.
The most recent Christmas campaign has been and gone, and this time the police changed the way in which statistics were collected. Now that all forces breath-test all the drivers involved in accidents to which they are called, we shall have a useful benchmark against which to measure progress. In past years, it has been impossible to do that properly. Just as public opinion has moved sharply against those who drink and drive, the police, too, take the offence very seriously indeed; hence the increasing number of tests. In 1996 there were 780,000 breath tests in England and Wales and figures for 1997 will be available in the spring.
Given the time still in hand, I trust that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will consider it in order if I touch on some of the specific questions raised in today's debate. I shall begin with some of the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon. Manslaughter was supplemented by the dangerous driving charge in the 1950s because juries were not convicting. Lifetime bans are available to the courts and were used 35 times in 1995—the most recent figures available.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) raised the issue of child safety on our roads—and, in particular, the safety of child pedestrians. He touched on a campaign that is being launched in his constituency today which he would have attended had he not wished to participate in the debate. The national child pedestrian campaign was launched only this morning across the road at Westminster school by my noble Friend the Minister for Roads. We hope that it will be extremely successful.
The hon. Gentleman also raised an issue which had a particular poignancy, indeed, a tragic dimension, for some of his citizens: the wearing of cycle helmets. The Government strongly recommend that they should always be worn, because statistics show that 49 per cent. of cycling accidents involve head and facial injuries. We are looking at the possibility of campaigning on that issue this year.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington raised a number of issues, including that of local authorities and speed. If we hand over enforcement powers relating to speed to local authorities, we will, in essence, be decriminalising the offences. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish us to do that. Local authorities are particularly well placed to target the locations in their locality where speed cameras could be positioned.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the selling of devices warning of speed cameras; I was not aware of the problem. The use of such detectors is an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 and cases have, in the main, been successfully prosecuted by the courts. We are not, however, at present persuaded of the case for

prohibiting the sale of such detectors, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are keeping the issue under review.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned fixed penalties. We shall be reviewing the level of penalty for road traffic offences later this year. We use the same methods for publicising drink-driving campaigns as for speed campaigns. The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to say that accidents are often caused not so much by excessive speed as by inappropriate speed. As he knows, that is something that the Government are keen to explore, especially in terms of providing children with safe routes to and from school.
I shall now turn to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It is becoming something of a cliché that, whenever the hon. Gentleman participates in debates, he begins by welcoming cross-party support, then proceeds to attempt to turn the discussions into a party political rant; he did pretty much the same today. I do not think that I need spend much time responding to his complaints about this Government's failure adequately to maintain our roads; nor shall I spend time responding to his comments on the amount of funding for road safety. He is aware that, year after year, his party's Government reduced funding for road safety and road maintenance. Year by year, that Government deprived local authorities of the power to spend such money as they had managed to find, in ways that met the needs of local communities.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the subject of answers to questions about accidents on the Sheffield supertram. As he well knows, inquiries on that subject are the responsibility of the coroner. The hon. Gentleman made allegations about money being—I admit that I am paraphrasing him—mis-spent. The Sheffield supertram came into being while his Government were in office.
One of the hon. Gentleman's most serious allegations today involved driving licence entitlements for insulin-treated diabetes. He averred that the Government had not consulted the British Diabetic Association. My noble Friend the Minister for Roads has sent a letter to every Member of Parliament, one paragraph of which warrants quoting:
It is not correct to say, as the BDA's letter does, that there was no consultation on the new requirement. The consultation paper of August 1996 on proposals for implementing the requirements of the Directive covered this issue. It proposed that holders of such licences"—
I shall touch on what those licences are a little later—
should retain all their existing entitlements until the licence expired—normally at the age of 70, but earlier in the case of those with short period licences on grounds of health—but should then be required to meet the higher health standards if they wished to renew the CI and DI entitlements. It also proposed that the change would be deferred by a year from implementation of other Second Directive changes, (which came in on 1 January 1997) and would apply to licences expiring from 1 January 1998, so that drivers affected would have time to adjust to the change. (The DVLA has also been writing to drivers before their licences expire, to give them warning.) The car licences issued to insulin-treated diabetics are normally for three years, and so their existing C I and D1 entitlements will expire between now and 2000.
The hon. Gentleman's allegation that the Government are simply reacting to some order from the European Union and the Commission could not be further from the truth. The essential issue is that of road safety. It is well established that there are road safety dangers associated with insulin because it can lead to hypoglycaemia,


which can cause loss of consciousness, often without warning. The extension of the new rules prohibiting insulin-treated diabetics from driving lorries of between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes and minibuses with nine to 16 seats is endorsed by medical experts, including the honorary advisory panel on diabetes and driving.
The Government have every sympathy with drivers who lose their entitlements, particularly those who drive such vehicles for a living. But in the light of today's debate, we must take seriously the possible dangers to road users; the advice is clearly based on those who are in the best position to advise politicians of whatever nation. The advisers are medical experts who have given their view of the inherent dangers.
Undoubtedly, on any medical issue, one or two individuals will have a different opinion from others—in this case, the honorary advisory panel. It is the responsibility of the Government to assess potential dangers. I would argue that it is better to err on the side of what some might call over-caution than to increase the already unacceptable statistics on death and injury not only on our roads—as the hon. Member for Christchurch made clear—but on roads throughout the European Union.

Mr. Chope: Will the Government support the Road Traffic Reduction (United Kingdom Targets) Bill on Friday 30 January?

Ms Jackson: I am happy to say that the Government will support the Bill. We believe that it may need to be amended. However, we are very conscious of the fact that—as a wide variety of organisations have said, and as emerged during our seminars on the consultation document on an integrated transport strategy—as a country, we simply cannot sustain a year-on-year growth in road traffic. It is already costing us—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Policing (Devon and Cornwall)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Mr. Deputy Speaker, like most people, regrettably—perhaps even you and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael)—I know at first hand what it is like to be a victim of crime. Very recently, my car was stolen from the local railway station. The police were very good and tracked down my car quickly—and the insurers paid to repair it. For many other less lucky people, a stolen car can be irreplaceable and repairs unaffordable, and—in rural areas especially—a lost car may even mean a lost job.
My Cornish researcher, Charlotte Callen, who helped me to gather information for the debate, had her bag stolen last night. It certainly brought home the reality—a morning off work cancelling cards, talking to the police, and an even bigger overdraft, one hopes not added to by illegal use of the card.
I sought this debate because I am sure that such incidents would happen less often if there were more police. It is not just that there would be a greater chance that criminals would be caught. More important, the expectation that the police may be on patrol, or that they will have time to detect and apprehend a thief, means that many crimes would be prevented. I shall focus on that argument.
Like most places, Devon and Cornwall have experienced a significant increase in crime figures during the past 20 years. It is an out-of-date theory that rural areas are almost crime-free. In fact, the figures have doubled since the Conservatives came to power in 1979. The problem of crime is no longer largely confined to the cities. The police tell me that a significant trend is that of up-country criminals leaving the heavily policed city areas for a weekend car trip to Cornwall or Devon—not for the beach, but to pick off isolated rural homes—where they know that a police officer will never be just around the corner, and where they cannot be on the local list of likely suspects.
It is time that we listened to the recommendations of the people who know—the police. Officers from my constituency, and throughout Cornwall and Devon, work extremely hard and do a great job. When I get the chance to spend time with police officers, I ask them what they would most like changed: the prosecution rate, the length of sentences, child curfews perhaps? Time and again they give the same answer: more police officers, so that criminals can expect to be caught, which helps to prevent crime and stops criminals in their tracks if they start.
That is the answer I received when I spent an evening on patrol with the police in Truro. It is the answer that I received in the very different surroundings of the Plymouth control room. It is the answer that I hear time and again, every time I speak to our local police—whether a bobby on the beat or a chief inspector.
And no wonder. The vast majority of serious crimes—murders, rapes, serious assaults—are solved because, rightly, all the police needed are made available. Well over eight out of 10 serious offenders are caught, and almost all murderers and rapists are brought to justice, so it can be done—crime can almost always be cracked if the police have the resources to do so.


However, when it comes to the vastly greater number of robberies and thefts, detection falls to just a third, and for vehicle crimes the figure is less than a sixth. This is not about bad policing—our police do an excellent job in the circumstances—but about under-policing. With more officers, the general public could feel safe again. I am not suggesting that a burglary could or should be met with a response on the scale of a murder hunt, but I am saying that we could and should resource the police to do a lot more.
The regular presence of the police, even a special constable, not only deters crime but—perhaps equally important—helps people to feel more secure in their homes. For many elderly and frail people especially, fear of crime is perhaps the greatest threat. A feeling of security is hard to put a price on, but it is crucial to anyone's quality of life. I praise the Cornwall and Devon constabulary for the work they put in with specials to provide such reassurance and support for policing in local communities.
However, police resources are simply failing to keep pace with the change in rural areas. Locally, in 1997 we actually had 45 fewer police officers than in 1994. The funding of the police force nationally is £138 per resident on average. In contrast, the Cornwall and Devon constabulary can spend only £109 per head, which means that the Cornwall and Devon police force are facing crime with far less manpower than the average. No wonder our local police feel overstretched.
In addition, Devon and Cornwall experience an influx of tourists every year, which swells the population massively. The resident population of both counties combined is just over 1 million, and police funds are already overstretched, as I have explained. However, during a year, the Devon and Cornwall area witnesses an influx of 9 million tourists, which obviously places a huge strain on police resources. In peak summer, the population of Cornwall alone increases from approximately 500,000 to 750,000—in other words, it goes up by half. Sadly, not only traffic and accident problems increase for the police; between May and August, crime increases significantly.
Devon and Cornwall are also confronted with the problems of all rural areas. Call-out and response times are inevitably slightly longer, and regular patrols in scattered isolated hamlets are simply impractical. In addition, we are a coastal peninsula. In most of England, in an emergency, neighbouring police forces can be called in as back-up. That is only true for us on the eastern border—otherwise, we are surrounded by water. That adds real costs to the police, not least because they must be prepared to cover for themselves what others might reliably expect to have covered by others.

Mr. Andrew George: Like my hon. Friend, I have experienced a night patrol with the local police a few times. Once, a firearms incident occurred, to tackle which eight authorised firearms officers, in a firearms team, were needed. It occurred in west Cornwall, very close to Land's End, and officers throughout Cornwall were taken out to deal with that event. Obviously, it was impossible to call on officers from constabularies to the west, the nearest being in Newfoundland. I wonder

whether my hon. Friend would comment on the fact that, in the extreme west of the region, we have specific difficulties in meeting the problems of police provision.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend makes the point more than adequately. In most parts of the country, support can relatively easily be called from the surrounding area. That cannot happen in Cornwall and Devon, and, by necessary implication, Cornwall and Devon police must make sufficient provision to take that into account, whereas other forces do not.
In theory, there is an allowance in the funding to cover at least rural sparsity, but the Library tells me that other consequences of the formula's impact on rural areas effectively offset that, to the extent that the net additional funding is zero. On tourism, although our daytime population can double in summer, the funding allowed is less than 4 per cent.
The combination of those issues—especially the peninsularity, which goes way beyond anything that the formula can allow for—causes me to conclude that Cornwall and Devon's police need fairer funding.
I remind the Minister of the key figures. Police resources are failing to keep pace with rising crime. In 1993, we had 45 more police officers in the local force than in 1997. In fact, according to the Library, between 1993-94 and 1996-7, real cuts in spending for the Devon and Cornwall constabulary were the third worst in the country—at a time when funding should have been increasing to cover the then Conservative Government's pledge to increase police numbers. I know that the Minister will join me in condemning that broken Conservative promise.
The funding of the police force nationally averages £138 per resident, but the Cornwall and Devon constabulary are allowed only £109 per head, as I said. The result is that, for each police officer in our region, there are 538 people. The national average is a fifth lower: just 414 people. I understand that an Audit Commission report on the police service is due for publication tomorrow, and it is likely to confirm those figures.
I do not expect us to be resourced at the level of the inner cities, nor do I expect everything to change overnight. Those problems have not been addressed for 18 years of Tory rule, but it need not cost a fortune. When Conservative central office costed the Liberal Democrat pledge to give chief constables the extra police they said they needed, it put the cost at £50 million a year. No hon. Member would expect Conservative central office to underestimate the cost of fulfilling a Liberal Democrat election pledge. That amounts to less then £1 per person per year across the country. I believe that the British public would be delighted to pay that for adequate policing and cutting crime.
This is not an attack on the new Government. They have made a start, albeit a small one. They seem to recognise that Devon and Cornwall have been underfunded, and the constabulary have received an above-average increase in funding—4.5 per cent., compared with 3.7 per cent. However, I think that the Minister would accept that that rise still does not bring us anywhere near the level of funding in the rest of the country, as the spending figures per head of population show.
We recently released an updated Liberal Democrat report on crime and policing in the south-west. In it we repeated our costed general election pledge to give, in the short term, 100 extra police officers to Cornwall and Devon. Over time, we want the number to move further towards the national average. The extra funding that Devon and Cornwall received this year has been a step in the right direction, and, after cuts under the Conservatives, it is a welcome step. Nevertheless, extra cash is still needed to provide more police. That is what Devon and Cornwall need.
Can the Minister, first, give us some assurance that this year's above-average funding for the region is a sign of things to come? Do the Government recognise that we had a raw deal from the previous Government on police funding, and that that must change? Will our police numbers now go up?
Pressure on police can be reduced in other ways. Closed circuit television cameras installed in town centres serve as a deterrent against crime.

Mr. Colin Breed: It is a pity that no Conservative Members are present to take part in the debate. One of the good measures introduced by the Conservative Administration was a bidding system by local authorities, in conjunction with retailers and other local groups, to put CCTV cameras into town centres. That was a welcome approach. Does my hon. Friend agree that it should be restored, and possibly increased?

Mr. Taylor: I agree with my hon. Friend about CCTV. The cameras installed in town centres have been shown to serve as a deterrent against crime. In Truro, for example, CCTV cameras helped to reduce crime by 40 per cent. after they were installed in 1995. I have discussed the matter with the police, as there is an obvious concern that crime may simply be displaced to the streets that do not have the cameras. The evidence is that that has not happened—certainly not to the extent that would explain the fall in crime. Traders in the surrounding streets in smaller towns now also want CCTV.
I have supported successful applications for CCTV funding for Truro and St. Austell in my constituency in the recent past, but there is concern about whether funding will continue. CCTV is expensive to install. The chambers of commerce in our part of the world are not wealthy, because the population are not wealthy—nor, under the strictures of local government funding, are the local authorities.
My second question to the Minister is whether funding will be made available for the further expansion of CCTV to build on the initial success. Will consideration be given to support for the on-going costs? Although those are not huge, they can become a burden on the police or on local authorities or both, as they find that more and more installations are paid for, but running costs and monitoring can prove more difficult.
I agree with my hon. Friend also about the extraordinary absence of Conservative Members from the Chamber in a debate on a region that has Conservative Members of Parliament and which they used to regard as their own. I understand that there is a Home Office Opposition spokesman, and it is a pity that Conservative Members are not here. They have a lot to answer for, although it is for the Minister to say what will be done.
The Minister may be aware that there are currently three police control rooms in Devon and Cornwall, but the police say that one will close, and Cornwall's—in Camborne—is at risk. As the Minister knows, Cornwall has a unique identity, and local knowledge can save vital time. Moreover, Camborne is one of the worst unemployment black spots in the country. For all those reasons, it is vital to retain a control room in Cornwall. My third request, therefore, is for the Minister to look into the matter and encourage a conclusion that retains a control room in the county, although I know that the decision does not rest with him, certainly at this stage.
The same points apply to the proposed closure of Camborne Crown court, incidentally. That would cause extra costs and difficulties for the hundreds of people who use it. If it closes, they will have to travel to Penzance. Although the report from the Court Service suggests that that is easy—a train ride costing a few pounds—that is difficult for people living in one of the poorest communities in the United Kingdom, where every penny counts and getting about is a struggle. Not all live near the railway station. Will the Minister look into that matter as well?
We have a massive 124 people more for every police officer than the national average. The crime rate has rapidly increased over most of the past 20 years. Closures of police operation centres are looming. The previous Government took inadequate action to help. Crime figures doubled during their term in office, and in recent years they cut police numbers. The people in Cornwall and Devon expect the new Government to show more commitment to providing an improved police service for both counties. I have acknowledged that a small start has been made.
At the election, I made a pledge to the people of Devon and Cornwall to monitor and argue for our police service and the funding it receives under the new Government. I intend to continue to do so. I hope that I will have good news to give them.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on obtaining the debate, and on the way in which he has introduced it. The absence of Conservative Members from the Chamber shows their embarrassment on policing issues, but it allows us to have an intelligent debate. I shall try to respond sensibly to important points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman has been the victim of crime. The fact that that experience is so widespread is precisely why we are introducing a series of measures to cut crime in the Crime and Disorder Bill, which the House will have an opportunity to debate in the near future. That Bill contains significant measures that will make a considerable impact at local level.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the experience of car crime. I agree with him about its importance, especially in rural areas, where transport is essential. That is one reason why, in recent months, I have taken a particular interest in the matter. We have launched various initiatives, including the secure car parks schemes, which I commend to any area trying to attract visitors. We want to reach the critical mass, with enough safe car parks for people to go looking for them. That will bring about the virtuous circle, where other car parks will have to be made safe because the public will go looking for safe ones.
We have published a comparative document on the security of different makes of vehicle, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman. He might like to study it before he replaces his current vehicle.
The personal impact of theft, particularly when crimes of theft are associated with violence, such as mugging, is extremely damaging, not only in the immediate upset caused, but often because of the serious long-term effects of such events. We are trying through the Crime and Disorder Bill to put in place measures that will affect the prevalence of such experiences.
The Bill includes measures to nip things in the bud when youngsters start to offend; to speed up youth justice in particular; and to bring about effective sentencing. The police and local authorities are making an effort to cut crime together. It is a matter not just for the police but for everybody. I am delighted at the positive response that we are getting from the police and from local authorities in discussions about the implications and implementation of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the recruitment of specials. I have put some personal commitment into that by visiting every region in England and Wales in the past two weeks with the recruitment exercise. One thing we have seen is the much more professional training of specials. Greater demands are being made of them, but those demands are being met. The way in which specials and regular police officers work together as a professional team in many parts of the country is a particular pleasure.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Minister address the equipping of specials? I am not surprised that no Conservative Members are present—Labour Members are here, and there are five Liberal Democrats—as the meanness with which the previous Government approached this problem was outrageous. In my constituency, a special was recruited but could not be equipped even with a radio.
I put a similar point to the Minister, again on the prevention theme, which I acknowledge that he and his colleagues are tackling vigorously. Closed circuit television is fine, but if there are difficulties over VAT, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) said, difficulties with the maintenance and monitoring of CCTV, it is investment down the drain. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that.
I also ask the Minister to address the point about Victim Support if he has time.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Gentleman needs to ask for an extra hour on the debate.
As far as specials are concerned, work has been going on. I met and listened to specials about the proposals in the working party report. I shall attend a conference in a few weeks' time that will include representatives of specials from every police force. I shall attend personally because it is so important. I hope that that will help to achieve the professional approach to specials that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
I shall deal with CCTV in a moment.
There are two approaches to victims of crime. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced an additional grant of £1 million to help Victim Support to continue to move forward. It is a high-priority issue for us. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I continue to work closely with Victim Support in government, as we did in opposition. We want the care of victims and attention to their needs to be at the heart of the criminal justice system, not just through the work of Victim Support.
In particular, a task force across Government Departments has looked at the needs of vulnerable witnesses and victims to try to improve the situation in court. There are quite a variety of victims and witnesses, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—people with learning difficulties, women who have been through a traumatic experience, children who have been subject to abuse, elderly people who feel nervous about the courts. It is not an easy topic to deal with, but I hope that he will accept my assurance that we treat it seriously.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell and his colleagues have raised a number of important points. I rather suspect that, because of the additional questions, I shall not be able to cover all the points. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman afterwards to reinforce points, where necessary, and to answer the ones that I do not reach.
The hon. Gentleman raised important points about the finances of the police service. The formula is supposed to reflect need rather than the historic level of staffing. The historic level of staffing, which influences the formula, is distorting it. That element is down to 20 per cent. this year as a result of the decisions we took, which is one reason why the formula has benefited Devon and Cornwall. We intend to continue to taper that increasingly anomalous factor in the formula.
The formula includes an allowance for differences, particularly in relation to sparsity and visitor numbers to an area. The hon. Gentleman referred to those two factors.
We intend to commission research on sparsity. There has been much debate about it. There is some evidence to suggest that there is not a definable element of sparsity that causes additional problems to the police. Not surprisingly, large rural areas contend that it is there, that it affects them, and that it jolly well should be definable. We will get some independent research to try to lay that to rest. It is silly to argue about it year on year. We should try to reach an objective point where we can settle it, at least dependably, so that forces know where they stand.
The basic point that I am making is that areas differ, and the formula seeks to reflect that difference. The formula has been distorted in recent years, which is why it is taking time to taper. The previous Government put in odd sums of money here and there in what seems an arbitrary fashion, which has distorted the impact of what was intended to be a needs-based formula. All forces I have met—I have met many police authorities and police representatives in recent weeks—make detailed and compelling special cases, not all of which are about being a peninsula. There needs to be a dependable formula, one that is as fair as it can be, although I doubt that it will ever be possible to get one that is perfect.
On a specific point, I shall not prejudice next year's funding settlement, but I think that I have indicated, in the way in which we intend to treat matters and try to get


a wholly needs-based formula, that the approach is likely to be helpful to Devon and Cornwall. I shall not give a commitment on police numbers, for reasons that I shall come to in a moment if there is time.
On CCTV, we have announced a further round, but there are difficulties, as I explained to the House a few weeks ago. The previous Government made no provision beyond March 1999, and when we came to power we discovered that they had spent half of next year's money for us in advance. Finances are being squeezed by the various problems we found, so the amount that we are putting into CCTV is £1 million—a small sum rather than the larger figure that we would have liked.
We are asking for carefully targeted small bids to look at the ways in which CCTV might be used in fresh and innovative ways. One or two examples have been given, including one by the specials in the hon. Gentleman's police area, which have given rise to the thought that there may be ways in which CCTV would be productive.
CCTV also benefits the police, the local authority and the wider community, particularly businesses in shopping areas. A variety of places in the country that have not succeeded in getting Home Office money have gone ahead anyway. People should not wait for Home Office money before considering whether the benefits to them are substantial enough to proceed.
I had the opportunity of a discussion with the chief constable and some of his officers when I visited the police headquarters a few weeks ago. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will do all we can to ensure that the police have adequate resources to play their part in cutting crime and in preventing it. We have been careful not to make rash promises about police manpower, because those promises, as the previous Government discovered, cannot always be delivered.
One of the many mistakes that the Conservatives made was to plan and project specific increases in police numbers, when, in the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act

1994, they handed powers to decide numbers to chief constables and the new police authorities, which have the freedom to decide whether to use their available resources on recruiting more police officers or on other expenditure, such as information technology and equipment.
With the efficiency of new technology, there are gains to be made in getting police officers out on the beat and not spending a lot of time travelling back to headquarters. It is not a straightforward issue; it has to be decided in relation to the geographical area that is being covered.
I shall not fall into the trap of promising more police officers—that is a matter for the chief constable and his police authority—but I promise that Devon and Cornwall will get their fair share of police resources.
As the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell acknowledged, Devon and Cornwall police authority benefited from an increase in spending power of 4 per cent., or £6. 1 million, this year. For next year, we are committed to remaining within the previous Government's overall spending commitments. Nevertheless, I can promise even more good news for policing in Devon and Cornwall. Under proposals announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 2 December, Devon and Cornwall will be able to increase its spending by 4.5 per cent. over this year. That is an extra £7.2 million, giving the police authority a total spending power figure of £167.5 million.
Once again, the proposed budget increase for Devon and Cornwall of 4.5 per cent. is significantly above the national average of 3.7 per cent. for police forces across England and Wales. That is a very healthy settlement, and the question for the force is how to make the best use of the finances available.
Police authorities were given the opportunity to comment or make representations to me on the proposed financial settlement for next year. We had no representations from Devon and Cornwall police authority, so it is reasonable to conclude that it is content that the proposed funding allocation gives it the capacity to police the area.

Bingley Relief Road

1 pm

Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the A650 Bingley relief road scheme, which has been debated in my constituency for longer than I have been alive. As I grew up in Bingley, the issue was constantly present. I walked to school along the Bingley main street for many a year having to breathe in and live with the choking fumes from the traffic that was spewing out emissions, so no one is more familiar than I with the congestion problems faced by Bingley, and no one is more aware of the need for the completion of the relief road scheme.
Since the general election, when I was pleased to be elected to represent Shipley, I have been involved in discussions with colleagues from the Bradford district, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer). Although she cannot be here today, she supports the completion of the relief road.
To a large extent, today's debate was prompted by a 10,000-signature petition, which I have passed on to the Secretary of State, asking for the scheme to be completed as soon as possible. I pay tribute to some of the scheme's most forceful advocates: Philip Smith from the Better Bingley campaign, who organised the petition; Mark Rand and others from Bingley Civic Trust; Alan Whetton and Jim Stephenson from the Bingley environmental study group; and some of the Bingley councillors, including Eileen Sinclair and Jim Flood.
Many others have been pushing for the scheme's completion for many decades. Local people cannot believe that the scheme has been in the offing for so long, yet has never really been completed. That is the point I want to emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am not asking for a new start to a new road; I ask only that the scheme be completed, because it has already been constructed to a large extent.
There is an enormous amount of traffic in the area, and the scheme is designed to take traffic away from the Bingley main street. Bingley used to be a small market town, but now forms part of the Bradford urban conurbation. It is located in a narrow, constricted, high-sided valley where most of the existing roads converge. That has created many problems because of the volume of traffic trying to squeeze through such a small geographical area.
The scheme consists of 5 km of dual carriageway. The local authority's study on the capacity of the new relief road concludes that, given the existing traffic flows and the rat runs on either side of the valley, the new scheme will not significantly increase the volume of traffic. Capacity will be sufficiently increased to relieve congestion in the town and ameliorate the problem of rat running, but, as a trans-Pennine route, the new road will not attract an increased amount of traffic.
Work has already been done on the scheme. Indeed, about £23 million has been spent: £6.5 million on the compulsory purchase of land and property; £6.2 million on diverting a canal and building a new bridge over Park road; £3.5 million on retaining walls and sewers; £3.3 million on a new aqueduct; and £3.5 million on a new railway bridge. That is an enormous sum. A roadway has been created where the relief road is due to go and much of it is simply waiting for a tarmac topping so that it can be used.
Bingley has suffered dereliction, decay and decline. The town centre has been blighted for a long time because congestion has put off most shoppers, and the retail industry has seen a steady and steep decline. Vacant premises have been boarded up in the town centre and along the route through the valley. The town has experienced chronic economic decline, compounded by the recession but undoubtedly accelerated by the congestion in the centre of Bingley.
The Government's roads review was correct to focus on accessibility, the impact of schemes on the economy, safety, environmental improvement and an integrated public transport strategy. On all five criteria, the Bingley relief road scores highly. First, on accessibility, according to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, traffic flows are extremely high—38,000 vehicles a day. The A650 is the busiest A road in the Yorkshire and Humber region after the A1, so I hope that the Government will see fit to give the scheme priority. It would provide improved local access to the town centre, allowing residents to move about more freely. Currently, their options are restricted by the substandard road network in the district.
The relief road would also improve links across the district between the large town of Keighley and the city of Bradford. It would ensure that those two parts of the same district council were properly linked.

Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work in trying to get the Government to support the relief road. Its effect will be dramatic not just on Bingley but on the whole Bradford district. Its completion would be an ideal opportunity to get away from the environmental damage caused by the current congestion and to develop investment opportunities in that corridor of Bradford city, which suffers from high unemployment.
In my constituency, development is concentrated around the M606 and the M62 motorways. We are overdeveloped and would like some of the prosperity, investment and development transferred to Bingley and Keighley. The completion of the Bingley relief road would help to achieve that.

Mr. Leslie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out those facts.
Secondly, the economic aspects of the relief road scheme form much of the argument in its favour. Firms such as Schindler's Lifts and Peter Black's in Keighley have reduced the number of employees, and many other firms have been put off locating in the district. Some have moved out, citing transaction costs and extra expenses caused by delays as reasons for doing so—Peter Black's said that it amounted to millions of pounds over the years. It is a significant deterrent to business.
The third criterion in the Government's roads review is safety. It is important to stress that aspect, because there is a vast amount of pedestrian-vehicle interaction on the Bingley main street. Cars and people mill about and mix together. Each year, there are an average of 35 accident casualties, some of which are quite serious. The Bingley relief road would remove much of the traffic, so the number of casualties would be significantly reduced. It would also improve access by the emergency services to Bingley and the villages on each side of the valley: ambulances and fire services have had difficulty getting to those areas.
The fourth criterion is the environmental impact of schemes. The Bingley relief road would not only help to regenerate the town centre environment and to rejuvenate the shopping and community areas, but would lessen dramatically town centre pollution.
A recent study undertaken by Bradford council's environmental protection division used a statistical model of emission levels to date to make projections for the future. Emission levels are at their minimum at 45 to 50 mph. Because of the congestion, traffic goes very slowly through the town. If the constant stop-start, stop-go of traffic could be ended, expected pollutants would be reduced massively. Nitrogen dioxide levels, which are currently above the European Union's health guidelines, would be reduced to a much safer level; particulates would be reduced significantly; and carbon monoxide emissions and benzene levels would be halved.
Local general practitioners and doctors often call Bingley and the Aire valley "asthma valley": the Bingley chest has been a local phenomenon for a long time. I am keen to stress the air pollution benefits that would be gained from the completion of the Bingley relief road.
Concerns have also been raised about the Bingley south bog. However, the Highways Agency has amended its design plans significantly, and has mitigated many of the problems. English Nature, the countryside service and the ecological advisory service have said that they are comfortable with the proposed scheme. According to the Department's own ecological study of the Bingley south bog, it contains no nationally rare or scarce plants, no plant species from the Department's red data book, no protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and none of the 315 plants on the Nature Conservancy Council's nationally scarce plants list.
In weighing up the environmental factors in the Bingley district, it is important to study air quality in the town and other physical factors. I strongly believe that the environmental benefits far outweigh other considerations.
The fifth criterion relates to the contribution that a scheme can make to an integrated public transport system. Moving traffic from the Bingley main street on to the relief road would create a potential thoroughfare for public transport that would link the whole of the Aire valley, and would provide an integrated public transport network across the district. Buses could be timetabled. That problem is not often mentioned, but the bus route to Airedale general hospital has been cancelled because of the difficulties of timetabling a service in such a congested area.
There is a point at which relieving congestion creates new possibilities for public transport. It facilitates cycle routes and town centre pedestrianisation, and would aid the "park and ride" facilities at Bingley and Crossflatts, where there is an electrified railway that should be used more.
Everywhere in the district has transport difficulties: Shipley and Saltaire also face problems. However, without the completion of the Bingley relief road—the link that has been missing for so long—we will face congestion and traffic problems for many years to come. My constituents find it unbelievable that the scheme has taken so long. The route has been decided, but we are waiting for the Government to finish the job.
Given the benefits of the scheme to the community and to the environment, its contribution to public transport improvements in the town, and the economic and road

safety aspects, I strongly urge the Government, in their roads review in the spring, to prioritise the Bingley relief road and to complete the job.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): It is usual in Adjournment debates to congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. I think that congratulations should be offered to the residents of Shipley on having returned my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to the House. He has raised this issue, which is of particular importance to his constituents, not only this morning but virtually ever since he walked through the Member's Entrance. He has devoted a great deal of time, effort and energy to drawing to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Roads the need for the Bingley relief road, as perceived in his constituency.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his generosity in allowing my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe) to intervene, and on being so particular in underlining the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) endorses what he has said.
The issue is clearly of great importance to the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley presented the case to the House succinctly and in detail. I understand that, only last week, he made an able presentation to my noble Friend when she met hon. Members from constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside to discuss the Government's roads review.
Before I deal with the particular issue of the Bingley relief road, it may be helpful if I said a little about how the roads review fits into the overall thrust of the Government's transport policies. Our work to develop an integrated transport policy provides the immediate context for the roads review. The backdrop to that fundamental review of transport policy is a candid recognition that we cannot carry on as at present. The predicted growth of traffic and the consequent congestion are unsustainable: the environmental, economic and social implications are unacceptable. However, the appropriate response cannot be simply to hack away once again at the roads programme without taking any further action. We need to adopt a much broader view: we should examine all modes, and use broadly based criteria to assess schemes. One of the encouraging aspects of what is, we acknowledge, a hugely ambitious task is the degree to which there is consensus on the need for change.
We should examine the role of the motor vehicle in providing mobility in a more integrated transport system. Such a system should make the best use of each mode of transport. All options should be considered on a basis that is fair and is seen to be fair, and takes into account from the outset safety, environmental, economic, accessibility and integration considerations—my hon. Friend touched on all five points. That must be done in such a way as to give us all confidence and, above all, in a way that is sustainable.
That is the context for the roads review, which is an integral part of our integrated transport policy work. It is about the role that trunk roads should play alongside other modes in an integrated and sustainable transport policy.
The issue that looms largest in the roads review is undoubtedly congestion. We have three broad options: making better use of the existing infrastructure; managing demand; and providing new infrastructure.
Making better use of the existing infrastructure is the obvious first choice. It may also be the least painful. Making better use of the network may help to provide a much-needed breathing space, but there must be some doubts about whether it can cater for more than a small fraction of the forecast increase in demand. That means that we have to look very seriously at the other, harder options: managing demand and providing new infrastructure.
Managing demand is a vast topic which cuts across all modes. It encompasses reducing the need to travel, through land use planning, and by changing the way in which we live, work and enjoy our leisure; it must also include an assessment of the extent to which we can encourage a shift to other modes, and, inevitably, it involves the question of controlling demand by pricing or rationing mechanisms, unpopular though they may be. At the very least, managing demand is about changing human behaviour, so it follows that it is a very difficult thing to do. I am sure we could readily achieve a consensus that, as a society, we should use cars less; making it happen is another matter.
That brings us to the third and last option—providing new infrastructure. That is also a very difficult option, both financially and in terms of the impact that it may have on the environment. Circumstances vary from case to case. In some cases, a new or widened road may be the only option to provide a comprehensive solution to the problems caused by traffic and congestion in a particular community. There is no substitute for rigorous case-by-case examination of the options, and to that end we have carried out a regional consultative exercise led by the Government offices for the regions. We have looked, region by region, at the perceived traffic problems and the roads programme that we inherited from our predecessors. We regard the existence of a scheme in the inherited programme as prima facie evidence of a transport problem.
The aim of the regional consultations is to give us a view on which problems deserve the greatest priority. Once we have identified the priority problems, the next step is to ensure that all the credible options are properly evaluated. There is no presumption that a road scheme is the right solution, or that a scheme in the roads programme is the best option. We envisage two outputs from that part of the review: a short-term investment programme, and a programme of studies to examine the remaining problems. From that, we will develop the medium and longer-term investment programme.
The short-term programme will include both measures to make better use of the existing network, and new construction schemes. The new construction schemes are likely to be schemes from the inherited roads programme that address priority problems in a way that is consistent with our integrated transport strategy. We will not put schemes into that programme if it is clear that there is an alternative option that could obviate the need for the existing schemes. The right thing to do in those cases would be to study the alternatives more fully before reaching decisions.
Let me turn to the specific issue of the A650 Bingley relief road. The development of road improvement proposals in the Aire valley has a long and controversial

history, which—as it is part of the personal history of the hon. Member for Shipley—I will not rehearse today. However, the Bingley relief road is one of a number of schemes originally designed to provide a good route between the settlements in Airedale, the centre of Bradford and, beyond that, the motorway network. Two of those schemes have been completed: the dual carriageway sections between Kildwick and Beechcliffe and between Victoria park and Crossflatts, which opened to traffic in 1988. As well as the Bingley relief road scheme, the roads programme inherited from our predecessors includes schemes to improve the A650 Hard Ings road in Keighley, and the A629 between Skipton and Kildwick.
Significantly, in previous reviews of the roads programme, schemes to provide a tunnel under Saltaire and to build an eastern bypass of Shipley have been withdrawn. Associated local authority road schemes to improve the route between Shipley and the centre of Bradford are also being reconsidered. The comprehensive strategy to improve the route as a whole has been reduced over the years, not least on financial grounds, and we have inherited a set of proposals to address local congestion, safety and environmental problems along the Airedale route.
The regional consultation undertaken as part of the roads review has emphasised the severity of the problems in Bingley, and highlighted the strong feelings about the relief road scheme—feelings which were underlined by what was said by my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley and for Bradford, South. The Government office has received about 100 letters in support of the proposals, and 36 opposing them. In addition, a 10,000-signature petition in support of the new road has been submitted.
The submissions supporting the scheme echo the points made by my hon. Friend, highlighting problems of congestion, road safety, pollution, commercial decline in the town centre, the need to encourage regeneration along the Aire valley and the extensive blight caused by the protection of the road line. On the other hand, a number of representations from environmental groups have argued strongly against the building of the relief road. They claim that it would generate additional traffic and shift traffic bottlenecks further down the route to Saltaire and Shipley, and that it would therefore not solve the current problems of congestion and pollution.
We shall want to give careful consideration to all the representations in reaching a decision on the Bingley relief road. The decision must be firmly based on the principles of our integrated transport policy, which I outlined earlier. I fully recognise the serious existing problems of congestion, road safety and environmental damage, which need to be addressed. We need to consider the contribution that demand management and improved public transport can make to the solution of the problems in the corridor that we are discussing. Indeed, I think that there is a great deal of common ground between different sides in the debate about the future of the relief road scheme. Many of those arguing for the construction of the new road recognise that a package of measures to improve public transport is also necessary.
I fully appreciate that the residents and business community in Bingley have been looking forward to the construction of the relief road for many years, and I am sensitive to the argument that £23 million has already been spent on advance works to create the path for the


new bypass; but we must assess fully the justifications for spending a further £64 million to complete the scheme, to assess the proposal within the new appraisal framework that we are developing against the five criteria set out in the roads review consultation document, and to assess the priority to be given to the scheme against other schemes that are candidates for the short-term programme. In our deliberations, we must consider solutions in an integrated way, assessing carefully the contribution of different modes, and looking at the problems of Bingley in the broader context of the strategies required for the route as a whole.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to the attention of the House. He put the case for the construction of the Bingley relief road very forcefully. I am sure he will appreciate that, until the review of the roads network has been completed, I cannot tell him what the future of the scheme will be. The results of the review are expected to be published later this year, but we will examine all my hon. Friend's representations, and those of others, in detail.

Railway Noise

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I thank those in Madam Speaker's Office for selecting my debate. I also thank hon. Members who have expressed their support, but who—understandably, given that this is a busy time—cannot be present.
One of the things that I have appreciated since becoming a Member of Parliament is the way in which Members are prepared to debate not just great matters of state, but issues that—although they affect the lives of only a small number of people—raise principles of wider significance. That is particularly appropriate when we are discussing remedies that the House intended to be available to such small groups, but which have been discovered to be defective.
The subject of the debate directly affects residents of Rupert road in Guildford—whose petition I have here—but it also raises three matters of wider principle. First, how are the railway operators to be made accountable for their impact on the environment? Secondly, are those who live near railways receiving fair compensation for that, at a time when it is intended that there will be investment in the rail network so that it will be improved and its use intensified to a greater extent than for many years? Thirdly, when the use of rail and road networks increases, do we reflect the cost to those who live nearby of the benefits that accrue to the rest of us, as a result of such intensification of use?
I have always been a friend of the railways. The garden of my previous home abutted the main railway line. Equally, those who live in Rupert road in Guildford chose to go there in the full knowledge that their road abutted a busy main-line railway station. They had been there for many years when our saga began 21 months ago, when Railtrack decided, without any apparent consultation or a requirement for detailed planning permission, to take advantage of a disused siding and erect what is effectively a new maintenance depot to service its mainline operations and to help in its vital signalling work on that line. That involved the creation of new road access, the erection of offices and electrification of disused line.
As I said, the developments did not require Railtrack to consult local residents or even the council. However, when the project was under way, the noise began for those who lived in the immediate vicinity. I shall quote from one of the letters that I received from the residents, to give a flavour of the noise and difficulty that they face. In her letter, a lady states:
I do not think we have had an uninterrupted night's sleep this week. On Monday I was woken at 3 am by what sounded like someone throwing bricks at a metal sheet for half an hour. On Tuesday night my neighbours called the police after South West Trains left a diesel engine parked by the fence with the engine roaring and the compressors screaming every three minutes. The Environmental Health Officer came out and took measurements which recorded this at over 70 decibels.
There are many similar incidents to which I could refer. Residents have had to take days off work to recover from the night-time noise and they have had to take days away from home. A family with three children who live by the railway were especially affected by the fumes from the new activity. The three children have asthma, and I presume that "Thomas the Tank Engine" is not their favourite bedtime reading.
I pay tribute to Guildford borough council, and especially to the environmental health officer, Mike Keetch, who has worked tirelessly on the case from the end of 1996, when the residents asked for his help in the matter. That has required the installation of detailed recording equipment and being available at all times of the day and night to ensure that evidence is properly gathered. A council report states that on one occasion
the normal background noise level of about 44 decibels was raised for periods as high as 76 decibels which is a loud and intrusive noise level.
Railtrack took nine months to respond to entreaties by the council, let alone the earlier entreaties by residents, for a meeting to resolve the serious problems that the new and intensive development had caused. In view of what was agreed at that meeting, it is striking how simple were the steps that Railtrack had to take to at least alleviate the problems that it had caused. They included such simple measures as erecting signs along the railway telling drivers and workers that they should keep noise to a minimum, and noise control provisions in the contract terms of Railtrack operators.
One would have hoped that such simple measures would be implemented without delay. However, a Guildford borough council officer who wrote to me about the matter stated in his letter:
Since that date efforts have been made to contact Railtrack and seek confirmation of the steps that they propose to control noise. No response has been received … although a meeting has been arranged at my request on 3 February.
Over the past week, since this debate was scheduled and in the light of the next week's meeting, there has been a short respite in the noise and difficulty caused to residents. I hope that the attention that has been drawn to the matter will have the effect that was intended and desired by legislation.
I contacted the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and discovered that it was its understanding that the Environmental Protection Act 1990 governed Railtrack and other rail operators. Guildford borough council took a great deal of trouble in collecting the required evidence and information, and was on the point of issuing proceedings against the rail company. It discovered that section 122(3) of the Railways Act 1993 gives all rail operators a statutory defence against the Environmental Protection Act. Those who take action against the rail operators have to prove that their operations and actions were, in the words of the section, "totally unreasonable".
Hon. Members will be aware that it is difficult in law to prove that an action is totally unreasonable even if it appears to be unreasonable and, as in this case, the rail operator has admitted that an equally viable site could have been chosen away from housing. It is a measure of the deficiency of the legislation that, because no consultation was required, that alternative proposal was not presented, although its implementation would have relieved the residents of the difficulty.
The residents also examined the Land Compensation Act 1973, to see whether there were legal requirements on the rail operator to give grants to the residents for the cost of insulation. Noise regulations issued in 1996 require that, if noise during the day is more than 68 dB

or is more than 63 dB at night, compensation should be paid to residents. However, that is restricted to cases in which a new line is to be opened or when additional tracks are laid alongside an existing line. It does not take account of the revival of a long-derelict line. Even the electrification of such a line or the erection of depot buildings alongside do not count. Those are all signs not just of intensified use but of a material change in the use of the rail network.
It was also decided to seek the aid of the Rail Regulator, who issued environmental guidance in March 1996. The foreword states:
There is of course in place in this country extensive and detailed legislation aimed at protecting the environment. It would not be appropriate for me to try to summarise current requirements and standards in a document of this kind.
The implication is that the regulator assumed that operators such as Railtrack would be subject to the environmental legislation. The regulator's guidance is therefore sadly lacking in specifics. When he speaks of railways' impact on the environment, for example, he states merely:
mitigation of noise nuisance will require measures to be taken by train operators, rolling stock companies, Railtrack and the infrastructure maintenance companies".
That long list of those involved shows just how difficult it is to ensure that everyone involved in the railways heeds an effectively voluntary regime. Moreover, the voluntary regime specified in the guidance note is not nearly specific enough.
The problems at Rupert road have continued—although, as I said, they have abated somewhat in the past week. It is very much hoped that, because attention has been drawn to the matter, Railtrack will recognise its responsibilities to the community. Where Parliament has given any exemption from mainstream legislation—particularly from environmental legislation—a duty of care surely rests on those granted the exemption or licence to act extremely responsibly and, wherever possible, to observe the spirit and the letter of the law.
I believe that the Minister and her Department can make a difference in three specific matters. First, I hope that they will support the call for the regulator to issue to the rail operators new and more specific guidelines on environmental impact. I suggest that such guidelines should spell out how, before an intensification and material change of use occurs, operators should undertake a process of notifying local residents and the local authority, and undergo a period of consultation during which they must demonstrate the reasonableness of their proposals and the lack of any alternatives.
Secondly, the regulator should propose model clauses on environmental impact, so that those who work for the rail operators are bound by a legal and effective system to ensure that the type of suffering and disruption caused to the residents in Rupert road does not happen again there or elsewhere. The operators could use such clauses in negotiating contracts with their subcontractors.
Perhaps the Minister will confirm that the Government intend to introduce a new transport Bill. If so, will Ministers consider incorporating in it a revision of the terms of the Railways Act 1993—thereby changing the terms of the section effectively exempting rail operators, so that their operations are more tightly and more clearly defined when they impact on the environment and cause a nuisance to those living near railways?
Thirdly, there is the wider issue of the Land Compensation Act 1973. I speak as an hon. Member representing a constituency through which a main road—the A3—thunders, and in which the intensification of road use is every bit as much of a problem to constituents as the intensification of rail use. The Land Compensation Act 1973 is now 25 years old. Even if the regulations could have been extended—I do not believe that they could have been—to deal with the situation in Rupert road, there are many deficiencies in the way in which we assess and measure the effect on those living near our roads and rail networks.
I hope that the Minister and her Department, in promoting those suggestions, will bring pressure to bear on the rail operating companies so that they re-examine their scope for agreeing discretionary grants in cases that are currently in a grey area. The operating companies certainly have power to make discretionary grants to alleviate the noise caused to local residents.
Above all, I hope that this Adjournment debate will promote a wider debate on the issues that have been raised.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) on obtaining this debate and on learning so soon after his election to the House that the Chamber is not reserved for matters of great moment—although I argue that no matter is of greater moment than the concerns of one's constituents. I congratulate him also on presenting those concerns so cogently and in such detail. The issue that he raises is particularly important.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, on balance, railway transport is more environmentally friendly than road transport. Undoubtedly, however, it still generates noise. Although noise from railways tends to be less disruptive than noise from motor vehicles, and noise experts consider it much less of a problem and much less disturbing to sleep than road or aviation noise, that is of little concern to those of his constituents suffering from the instance that he described in such detail.
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are committed to developing an integrated transport policy and that, this spring, we intend to issue a White Paper detailing a strategy for the United Kingdom. As part of that strategy, and within an environmentally sustainable framework, the Government wish to encourage greater use of the rail network for both passengers and freight.
With greater passenger usage of the rail network and with moves to increase the percentage of freight traffic transferred from road to rail, there will inevitably be increased railway noise for many people who live close to railway lines. Our aim must therefore be to minimise railway noise as much as possible.
For many years, I lived over a very busy main line and, like everyone who has lived in a property near a railway line, I was aware that traffic patterns can change and that volumes can increase. However, some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents are particularly concerned about noise from engineering trains using sidings in the Guildford station area. Of course I regret any inconvenience caused to his constituents, but I am advised that those sidings are used by vehicles employed on

essential maintenance or on major investment projects to modernise signalling systems in the area. That activity is centred in Guildford because it has easy road access and the necessary services, and it is close to stores and stockpiles of necessary materials.
I regret that the efforts of Railtrack and its contractor to reduce noise at the site have not been successful in reducing the disturbance to local residents. I understand that residents have now been given a 24-hour Railtrack helpline number so that they may contact the company when necessary, and that Guildford borough council has arranged a meeting with Railtrack, on 3 February, to discuss the problems being caused to local residents.
Railtrack has advised me that the project to modernise signalling systems in the Guildford area is due to be completed in July 1999, and that that will reduce some of the disturbance to local residents. However, engineering trains and sandite trains—which put sandite on to the rails to help adhesion during leaf fall in the autumn—will continue to use the sidings at Guildford. The major Railtrack investment programme to improve signalling will bring benefits for many thousands of rail commuters across the south-east, but the related works will cause some inconvenience to people living nearby until they are completed.
Railtrack has assured me that it wishes to be a good neighbour to those who live adjacent to the operational railway—not only in Guildford but across the country—and that it tries to do all that it can to mitigate noise and nuisance caused by track or line-side works.
In major works, Railtrack gives advance notice to the local authority and line-side residents and, in some cases, has offered to accommodate residents in hotels. However, if Railtrack has to perform emergency safety-related work, it may not be possible to give advance notice to residents likely to be affected.
Although there is no statutory limit for railway noise, both Railtrack and train operators are subject to the statutory nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which are enforced by district councils. Under section 79 of the Act, it is the duty of district councils occasionally to inspect their areas to detect any statutory nuisances, and to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to investigate any complaint made by a local resident. Section 80 of the Act provides for the serving of abatement notices where a local authority is satisfied that a statutory nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur. In addition, a magistrates court may act under section 82, following a complaint by any person aggrieved by a statutory nuisance.
The hon. Gentleman referred to section 122 of the Railways Act 1993, which provides Railtrack with some defence against the Environmental Protection Act 1990 where it is carrying out works as a statutory authority, but it is not an open-ended defence to nuisance proceedings. Although the burden of proof required for conviction would be greater than if section 122 had not been enacted, it would be up to the local authority to convince a court that the noise generated by Railtrack was greater than might be reasonably thought necessary in order for Railtrack to carry out its statutory functions. I understand that the local authority has already taken up the case with the Rail Regulator. The Rail Regulator monitors the environmental performance of train companies and may be able to exert some pressure on Railtrack.
I turn from the specific case raised by the hon. Gentleman to railway noise more generally. There is no statutory provision for noise mitigation for those who live next to stations or shunting areas. It has always been accepted that those who buy property next to such areas do so in the knowledge that they will be affected to some extent by noise from the railway.
The Noise Insulation (Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems) Regulations 1996 provide statutory noise protection measures for people who live near new railway lines, or where a line is moved or widened. That is in line with noise insulation regulations offering statutory protection to people who live near new or widened roads. In recent years, a number of new railway projects have been planned or built, ranging from light railway systems to the channel tunnel rail link. The previous Government recognised that it was only fair that people living near new railway lines should be no worse off than people living near new roads.
The 1996 regulations confer a duty on the body responsible for the construction of a new railway line or additional tracks alongside a line to offer insulation when noise exceeds certain levels. There are two noise trigger levels: one for daytime and a separate, lower one for during the night. The standards reflect the character of railway noise—usually short bursts of noise followed by longer periods of quiet—and are expressed as an average noise level over a given time period. In addition, insulation may be offered against excessive noise from railway construction. In all cases, residents have the option of receiving a grant to cover the costs of carrying out the insulation work themselves.
The adoption of national standards ensures equity of treatment regardless of the area where people happen to live. That is very important. If noise insulation standards had to be determined separately for each individual rail project, unnecessary costs would be incurred and there would be a strong chance that people in one area would receive less protection than those in other areas. The certainty provided by setting national noise insulation standards benefits both line-side residents and promoters of new railway projects.
There is no provision in the regulations for insulation to be offered when use of a railway line intensifies. Again, that mirrors the position on roads. Successive Governments have taken the view that those who choose to live adjacent to roads or railways do so in the knowledge that the volume or composition of the traffic may change, and the householder must therefore bear the risk of that.
Although the Land Compensation Act 1973, of which the hon. Gentleman is clearly aware, would not seem to benefit those in his constituency whose plight he has so cogently detailed, the Act allows householders to claim compensation from the responsible authority when the value of their property is diminished by physical factors, such as railway noise or vibration, caused by the use of new or altered public works. For railways, the Act is not specific as to what is meant by "altered works", but it refers to their being
reconstructed, extended or otherwise altered".
There is no statutory requirement for compensation to be paid purely because traffic on a railway line has increased. That again parallels the situation for roads. For an altered

railway line, it is for Railtrack to determine whether particular works undertaken are covered by the meaning of the Act.
Noise mitigation measures are one aspect of tackling noise, but train operators and Railtrack need to take reasonable steps to reduce railway noise at source. For example, railway noise can be reduced by measures such as replacing jointed track by all-welded track, the use of electric locomotives instead of diesel locomotives for hauling freight trains, and the use of lighter freight wagons. The Government propose to discuss noise levels, exhaust emission levels and energy efficiency with the railway industry with a view to gaining an understanding of what improvements the industry can deliver in those areas.
Noise barriers have proved effective in some instances, but they are undoubtedly expensive and, on occasion, replace noise disturbance with visual intrusion. Although there was no statutory entitlement to noise protection, sound barriers have been erected in a number of locations in London and the south-east on lines affected by increased noise from channel tunnel trains. Voluntary jointly funded noise mitigation schemes were agreed between the British Railways Board, Railtrack and the local authorities concerned. Such noise barriers are, however, likely to remain the exception to the rule, and I expect the railway industry to concentrate its efforts on reducing noise at source. New projects such as the CTRL have been very successful in incorporating noise mitigation measures in the design from the beginning.
Looking to the future, a general European Union noise directive is likely to be the main driver of tighter standards for railway and other noise across Europe. Hon. Members may know that the EU published a Green Paper on future noise policy on 5 November 1996. The Commission proposes to establish a framework of working and steering groups to consider noise policy, which will include a railways working group.
I regret that the hon. Gentleman's constituents are suffering from noise from the sidings in Guildford. The resignalling scheme that causes part of that noise is due to be completed by July 1999, but I hope that, before then, Railtrack will be able to find ways of reducing the disturbance to local residents. In the longer term, there is always likely to be some noise disturbance for those who live next to railway sidings, and I fear that little can be done about it.
Although railways are generally more environmentally friendly than roads—the Government want to see more use made of the railway network—I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take the wider issue of railway noise very seriously and will be talking to the railway industry about what can be done to reduce noise at source. I must stress that there are no easy or cheap solutions.
The hon. Gentleman raised three particular points. He said that the Rail Regulator should issue guidelines on the environment and that there should be consultation with residents, and he raised the issue of contractors. I believe that Railtrack should be undertaking such things anyway. There should be no formal requirement concerning the regulator. Railtrack, in the main, exists only as a result of vast public subsidies, which go into our railways via access charges. It is surely in Railtrack's best interests, as a good private company that wishes, as it has


said, to be a good neighbour, to ensure that the kind of actions that the hon. Gentleman has proposed are part and parcel of its work in every way.
With regard to the possibility of a transport Act, we shall be publishing a White Paper on our integrated transport policy—how we can make best use of all transport modes, including roads, railways and waterways. I am not able to say that there will be a separate transport Bill, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at the creation of a strategic rail authority.
I am in no position to comment on—nor have any knowledge of—the possibility of a review of the Land Compensation Act. I have made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said. His comments stem directly from his constituents' concerns about a particular incident, and I shall look further into the matter.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Dependent Territories (Assistance)

Mr. Swayne: How many of the United Kingdom's remaining dependent territories receive development assistance; and if she will make a statement. [23858]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): The dependent territories receiving British development assistance are Montserrat, St. Helena and, to a lesser extent, Anguilla, the Turks and Caicos Islands, the British Virgin Islands and Pitcairn. The scale of our support to the poorer islands in particular illustrates the UK's commitment to the development of those territories.

Mr. Swayne: There seemed to be a note of menace in the Foreign Secretary's remarks, reported at the weekend, urging dependent territories to adopt our practice and expand their range of sexual experience. Who is in charge of the budget? Does the Minister believe that it should be transferred to another Department? Mindful of the fate of the cities of the plain, is he prepared for the Secretary of State to be cast in the role of Lot's wife?

Mr. Foulkes: There is no menace in my voice, despite the obvious temptations. Responsibility for the dependent territories is under consideration. We are looking at the representations made by the International Development Select Committee, which were far more reasoned and reasonable than the hon. Gentleman managed to be.

Tibet

Mr. Godman: When she last met her colleagues from other member states of the European Union to discuss matters relating to the provision of multilateral aid to the indigenous people of Tibet. [23859]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): I have not personally discussed aid to Tibet with my European colleagues, but my officials are in touch with the Commission about the proposed Pa Nam rural development project, which will provide assistance for indigenous small farmers in Tibet. One condition of the agreement with the Chinese Government was that there should be clear provision for participation by local communities.

Mr. Godman: Not a penny of European Union funding should be given to the project until certain guarantees are met, one of which should be that the project must be managed and staffed by indigenous Tibetans. Before the agreement with the Chinese Government is signed, the involvement of non-governmental organisations must also be guaranteed. I understand that the Save the Children Fund could help with the project.

Clare Short: Agreement has been reached with the Chinese Government that the project should involve

indigenous Tibetans and NGOs. On the non-renewal of a visa for an education worker with the Save the Children Fund, Sir Leon Brittan decided, without consulting member states or the Save the Children Fund—I think that my hon. Friend will approve of the decision—to suspend implementation of the project until the problem is resolved. We very much hope that it will soon be resolved.

Rev. Martin Smyth: During a recent visit to India—at my own expense—I joined Lord Weatherill to visit Dharmasala. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to consider, and perhaps act, on providing scholarships for young Tibetans to come and be educated so that they might give leadership to their own people?

Clare Short: Most of the help which Britain bilaterally gives to Tibet is provided through local non-governmental organisations to get the help into the hands of local Tibetans. On scholarships, we are trying to move the emphasis towards training in the country because we can achieve more for our money and provide training that is relevant to the needs of that country. I will look at the hon. Gentleman's proposal, but that is the way in which we are moving.

Development Issues

Mr. Hope: What initiatives she is taking to promote greater awareness of development issues; and if she will make a statement. [23860]

Mr. Foulkes: We attach great importance to this area. Everyone has a right to understand the global considerations which shape their lives. I will have the privilege of chairing the first meeting of our new development awareness working group in March which will put in place an ambitious and exciting new strategy.

Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, and I congratulate him and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the excellent nationwide tour that is currently taking place in which local organisations, Church groups, non-governmental organisations and councils have the opportunity to debate at first hand the issues in the White Paper. I stress that we are impatient for change on development education, and raising awareness is important. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the development awareness working group will meet soon, will have proper terms of reference and will take early action to raise public awareness of the need to eradicate world poverty?

Mr. Foulkes: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks about the programme of visits. I had the great pleasure of starting off the programme, and we chose Belfast as an appropriate place to start. In Belfast, and in Aberdeen, I found great enthusiasm for the principles and the programmes of the White Paper, and very great enthusiasm for the work of the Department. I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has just sent out invitations to hon. Members to join that working group. We hope to have the meeting as quickly as possible to produce the kind of programme of activities which I know my hon. Friend will enthusiastically endorse.

Mr. Rowe: Without seeking to prejudge what the working group will decide, I must point out that the


Minister will be well aware that most of the development education so far undertaken has been undertaken by NGOs. It seems to me that there is very little need for huge Government funds to be involved—merely the facilitation of high-quality education, sponsored by those NGOs.

Mr. Foulkes: Part of the work of the working group will be to mobilise and extend the work being done by NGOs, to learn from their best practice and to spread it around. There is a big job to be done in relation to the formal curriculum. The working group will look at the curriculum and informal education, and will try, through the wider media, to get the message over to as many people as possible.

Ms Squire: I welcome the initiatives taken by my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to increase international development awareness throughout the UK, and I especially welcome the establishment of the working group. Will that group address the concerns which all of us have about child poverty and exploitation, especially when such exploitation produces goods that go on sale in our high street stores? What specific action do the Government intend to take to raise awareness of the part that we can all play in ending such exploitation throughout the world?

Mr. Foulkes: The Department is taking action through our contribution to the Independent Labour Organisation, where work is being done on core labour standards. I am sure that the working group will look at this matter to get over a wider awareness of the way in which children are being exploited—for example, there is bonded labour in some countries. This is a way of making people in the UK aware of some of the practices currently taking place which ought to be stamped out.

UNESCO

Mr. Ian Bruce: What is the annual cost of the United Kingdom's UNESCO membership. [23861]

Clare Short: The cost of UK membership of UNESCO for the calendar year 1998 is £11 million, although that might vary slightly with currency fluctuations. UNESCO's remit is the promotion of international co-operation in education, science, culture and communications. We welcome UNESCO's commitment since we rejoined to strengthening its contribution to meeting the international commitment to primary education for all children in the world by 2015.

Mr. Bruce: I know that the Secretary of State will be proud of meeting the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to rejoining UNESCO; but there was also a promise to pay for that out of savings from the rest of her budget. I understand from answers given by the Minister that membership is being paid for out of the contingency reserve. The previous Government would not have rejoined UNESCO, because the £11 million could otherwise have gone directly into schemes that we know get better value for money than UNESCO ever provides.

Clare Short: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern for my budget. I am concerned to ensure

that every farthing is well spent. In fact, the payment came out of my contingency reserve, which is part of my budget. If it had not gone on that, it would have gone on some other project.
We are proud of the quality of our bilateral programmes, but we are strengthening our commitment to the multilateral system. We cannot reach the poverty eradication targets alone, no matter how good our programmes are, so we must strengthen our commitment to making the international system work well, so that the targets can be reached in every country, including the ones in which we do not work individually.

Dr. Palmer: In view of the concern expressed by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) about the Department's budget, will my right hon. Friend urge the Conservative party to donate the £ 1 million that it has received from drug dealers?

Clare Short: I am grateful for the suggestion, but I am proud of the fact that the House has generally dealt with International Development questions in a bipartisan way, without playing political games. That is right, because these matters are of such concern to all parties. I hope that Opposition Members will support our tightened commitment to poverty eradication and our strengthened commitment to the multilateral system. In that way, Britain can make a bigger contribution to eradicating poverty throughout the world.

Montserrat

Dr. Tonge: What progress has been made on a sustainable development plan for Montserrat; and if she will make a statement. [23862]

Clare Short: Discussions have taken place at official level on the basis of an initial Government of Montserrat draft of the sustainable development plan. A revised draft will be circulated for comments in a few weeks' time. We are working on a plan for meeting the needs of those on the island while the volcano is active—as the hon. Lady knows, we do not know how long that will be—and we are also taking account of the longer-term investment needs once the volcanic activity has abated.
I want to take this opportunity to inform the House that I have approved £1.3 million in budgetary aid to cover Government of Montserrat costs for the first quarter of this year, and £450,000 to support small and medium-scale enterprises on Montserrat, to help people to be self-sufficient. That brings my Department's total commitment to the island to £51 million since the crisis began.
I have also approved £410,000 to help Montserratian small businesses on Antigua; and this week, because of the need to relocate from the central region, we are providing for 50 more houses and sites for 150 houses, some of which will be used for self-build.

Dr. Tonge: Does the Minister accept that while the volcano remains active there is a continuing threat to the people remaining on the island? There is a threat in the long term of damage to their lungs from the ash. There is also a threat of loss of life from an inadequate evacuation, should the volcano explode, as people try to get off the very temporary jetty.
Would it not be better to spend aid money on persuading people to leave and relocating them comfortably in Antigua, Britain or elsewhere, than to pour it into the northern tip of the island, which may, some say, benefit the rich landowners of Montserrat more than the people themselves?

Clare Short: As the hon. Lady knows, I am desperately concerned to ensure that all the people living on Montserrat understand the danger that the ash poses to their lungs. We have taken scientific advice, but no one knows exactly what will happen. We are monitoring people's health, but there is a link with silicosis, which is extremely serious.
We can get scientific risk projections, but the volcano is extremely unpredictable and there could be an explosion that leads to loss of life in the central zone. So I have been putting enormous effort into a public education programme to get people to understand the risks and the support that is available to enable them to come to Britain, relocate in the Caribbean or remain in the north of the island. I share the hon. Lady's concern that that communication has not been as effective as it should have been. I promise her that I will do everything in my power to make sure that it is.

Ms Abbott: Will the Secretary of State accept my thanks and the thanks of the many thousands of Monserrat evacuees living in Hackney and thereabouts for the extra aid that she has announced today? Will she bear in mind that the people still on Monserrat are aware of the risks? They are covered in ash and see the smoke every day. People in Monserrat and evacuees in my constituency tell me that, as long as it is possible to live in the north, the people still on the island want to maintain a community on Montserrat. They are passionate about some kind of stable development for Montserrat. I am sure that she is aware of that.

Clare Short: There are a number of evacuees from Monserrat in Ladywood. I know that what my hon. Friend says is true. I agree that there are people who wish to remain on the island. Elderly people, for understandable reasons, are less keen to relocate. I have never had any wish to tell people on Montserrat what to do. I am enormously keen that they understand the risks and the choices and that they really can choose which is the best solution for them. Our communications could still be better so that people really understand the risks and that no one is taking a political position. Some people have been led to believe that that is not the case.

Sir Alastair Goodlad: Is the right hon. Lady aware that the Select Committee's report on Monserrat was published as long ago as 18 November 1997? It would be helpful to confidence in Monserrat as well as to the House if she could produce an early Government response. When might it be available? Is she also aware that the criticisms of the Government's strategy for Monserrat were recently echoed by the Chief Minister, giving rise to unease among hon. Members on both sides of the House that confidence among the people and in the Government of Montserrat in the Government's handling of the emergency is at a

low level? Could she give some forecast of her response to the question of sustainable development or otherwise in the north of Monserrat?

Clare Short: Yes, I am conscious of the Select Committee report. I gave a large amount of evidence to the Select Committee. It is an excellent report and the analysis that it contains is very much in tune with the evidence that I put before the Committee.
Montserrat is a complex emergency because the volcano's behaviour has been unpredictable and has constantly changed. Great parts of the island have become uninhabitable bit by bit. Most of the activity occurred when the previous Government were in office. It has never been possible to plan for the position that faces us now because the volcano's behaviour has changed.
I am aware of some of the statements made by the Chief Minister. Some of them are highly political. My concern remains that the people of Montserrat know the truth about the risks that they face and the commitment of the British Government. Our response to the Select Committee will be ready soon. There is to be a debate in the House, in which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will participate. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are determined to do everything that we can to protect the interests of the people of Montserrat. This is an ever-changing emergency. We are just evacuating zone 3 and many people in quality houses are having to move again. That makes things very difficult.

Know-how Fund

Mr. Llwyd: What current projects are being supported from the know-how fund; and if she will make a statement. [23863]

Clare Short: A full record of projects is set out in the know-how fund report for 1996–97, which has been widely circulated and which I am placing in the Library. I published my new strategy for the know-how fund in mid-November which will shift the emphasis of our work to take more account of the terribly high levels of poverty while continuing to help build democratic and free-market institutions.

Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Lady for that response. In view of the perilous state of the Belarus economy, does she agree that it is important that further technical advice and financial assistance should be given to develop the role of non-governmental organisations in Belarus? It seems that that is the way forward for that country.

Clare Short: I cannot pretend that I have any personal expert knowledge of Belarus. Generally, we are moving efforts on the know-how fund eastward because the EU accession countries are most advanced and are receiving other assistance. We are trying to support good regulatory systems, better social provision—because so many people are falling through the system—and the building of civil society. To get local non-governmental organisations operating helps to create a democratic culture, and that is a major part of our strategy.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that know-how projects, and many other projects,


are beneficial to organisations such as UNESCO which have a positive role to play in evaluating different nations' and different regions' attitudes to helping those very economies that need such know-how help? Does she agree that UNESCO plays a vital role in spreading that best practice in information?

Clare Short: I agree with my hon. Friend, but we are moving to a new phase where Government and UN institutions and NGOs see their work as complementary, not in conflict. We get the best programmes where civil society, lively voices, different interests, UN agencies and Governments are all in honest dialogue. That is true of UNESCO and all the rest of our work.

Mr. Soames: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the know-how fund has been an astonishing success and represents extraordinary value for the taxpayer's money? The British taxpayer can be proud of the work that has been done through the Department for International Development, both under the previous Administration and her own. Does she further agree that the concept of the know-how fund could be applied to other countries? Will she consider whether it might be a good idea for us to consider establishing a know-how fund specifically for the Palestinians, who badly need to rebuild their self-confidence in order to make them a real, equal partner to Israel and more capable of paddling their own canoe?

Clare Short: The know-how fund's work is respected everywhere, and more respected than some other programmes with more funds which are disbursed less effectively. We are considering how the lessons of that transition might be applied to help China with the sort of restructuring that it is planning.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern with regard to the Palestinians. We have a considerable programme with the Palestinian authority and we have been moving from the phase of emergency intervention to helping the Palestinians to build their own institutions and prepare for self-governance. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the peace process is going slowly, and that makes it difficult to take that work forward.

Micro-credit Schemes

Mr. Reed: What measures she is taking to promote micro-credit schemes in developing countries. [23864]

Mr. Foulkes: We are increasing support to micro-credit and saving institutions in developing countries. Our total funding now amounts to nearly £42 million. Most of our funds go towards capacity building and encourage best practice in collaboration with developing country Governments and other donors. My hon. Friend will welcome the news that following the election we joined Results International.

Mr. Reed: Yes, I welcome that important news. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome many large projects in developing countries, capacity building is one of the most important aspects of micro-credit schemes? Micro-credit schemes play a vital part in helping those in the poorest developing countries. Will my hon. Friend assure me that in future, when the aid programme is being

considered, micro-credit schemes will play a much larger role in the way in which we help local developments and communities?

Mr. Foulkes: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome of our joining Results International and I direct his attention to a project that the Government have been supporting since 1993 in Kenya, the rural enterprise programme, which is now witnessing its transition to a banking institution, helping the poorest people, particularly women, to create their new enterprises. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that that is a model for other countries to follow.

Water Scarcity

Mr. Ottaway: If she will make a statement on measures to address water scarcity in developing nations. [23865]

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this very important issue. As he knows, water scarcity is a critical issue for many developing countries. Twenty per cent. of people lack access to clean water and—this is very serious—on current trends, two thirds of the world's population will face water shortages by 2025, with the pain and conflict that that might cause. We have a special responsibility through our presidency of the EU to work with the Commission for Sustainable Development to reach international agreement to conserve and share water resources equitably and to meet the international target of providing clean water and sanitation to all by 2015. I shall attend the ministerial and expert meeting hosted by France in March, which will help to build support for an international programme of action.

Mr. Ottaway: From that answer, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will agree that water scarcity is the sleeping tiger of the world's environment programmes, with water consumption increasing at twice the rate of population growth. May I draw her attention to the Population Action International report, which illustrates that population programmes are an effective way of conserving the world's resources, especially water, by stabilising population growth and protecting the environment?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right. Our commitment is to give access to basic health care and reproductive health care to the whole population of the world and to let people take control of their own fertility. When that is done and people can raise healthy and educated children, population levels fall because people know that their children will live and be safe. We must also take action on water: the projections for water consumption are greater than for population growth and we must move on both fronts. We intend to ensure access both to reproductive health care and to clean water and sanitation for everybody in the world.

Mr. Pike: What projects in the world for desalinating water to make it fit for drinking are the British Government helping?

Clare Short: I have to tell my hon. Friend that I cannot answer his question. Desalination is relevant in some


places, but tends to be very expensive. The challenge is not only to provide water to everybody, but to get agreement on the world's use of its water resources. Otherwise, we will have a security problem as well as one of human suffering.

Mr. Brooke: What danger does the Secretary of State see of international warfare due to water scarcity during the coming decade?

Clare Short: The right hon. Gentleman points out the logic of the figures on water scarcity by 2025, which will be a serious problem. We need an international programme of action in respect of the world's shrinking water resources. That has been a priority since the meeting of the United Nations General Assembly special session on environment and development. If we fail to get such an international agreement, as well as pain and suffering, there will be conflict across the world over water. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

EU Aid Policy

Mr. Bayley: What are her Department's priorities during the EU presidency in respect of EU-wide aid policy. [23866]

Clare Short: During the UK presidency, our top priority is to agree the EU negotiating mandate on the future of the Lomé convention, which governs the trade and development relationships between the EU and 71 African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. We shall also seek to secure commitment to the international development targets across all the EU development programmes and to increase the effectiveness of such programmes.

Mr. Bayley: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. May I tell her that people throughout the development lobby in Britain have warmly welcomed the tough targets that she has set for the UK aid programme on poverty reduction, literacy, primary health care and child deaths? Given that 30 per cent. of our aid budget is channelled through the EU, will she make it a high priority to get the same targets agreed by all the other EU member states, both for EU aid and, as far as possible, for their domestic aid programmes?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. The EU spend is £4.5 billion and our total budget is £2.2 billion, of which one third goes through the EU, so efforts to make the EU contribution more effective are enormously important. The beauty of the international poverty eradication targets—if we can get the institutions of the world to take them seriously—is that they can provide a framework for all our international work and enable us to measure progress, year on year and in every country, in health, education, clean water and so on. That is one of my overriding objectives for the EU presidency and we are holding a seminar on 17 March to try to get the member countries, the Commission and the European Parliament committed to that objective.

Mr. Faber: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the conditions attached to the European Union aid programme to Zimbabwe, negotiated by Mr. Jens Laerk, head of the EU delegation, will only delay, not cancel, the proposed seizure of farms by the Government there? Will she explain why, in our role as president of the EU, we are happy to promote the tying of aid to Zimbabwe on condition that farmers there can seek redress through the courts, but refuse to stand up for those very same farmers' democratic rights ourselves by insisting on similar conditions for our own bilateral aid programme?

Clare Short: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's question, as we discussed the subject at the last Question Time, when I made it clear to him that we have said that we think that there is a need for land redistribution in Zimbabwe, but it needs to be properly organised, transparent, relocated—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would let me answer, instead of hectoring, he might learn something.
I have discussed the subject with Commissioner Pinheiro, and the European Union is taking exactly the same position as us on land redistribution. There have been separate talks with the International Monetary Fund and the World bank—and we are in communication with them. We believe that, if we can get everyone to hold together on a sensible land redistribution strategy that complies with Zimbabwe law—that means that compensation has to be paid, as that is the law of Zimbabwe—we can pull Zimbabwe back from the brink of what might otherwise happen to its economy.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Dr. Palmer: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 28 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Dr. Palmer: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for that information.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have a three-part strategy for welfare reform: the welfare-to-work programme to get people back into jobs, the minimum wage so that the jobs are worth while and the benefits reform so that people who cannot work receive the help that they need? Does he agree that, as the Conservative party opposes the first two and is interested only in cuts in the third, its offer of help is nothing more than pathetic political posturing?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The welfare-to-work programme will be of enormous benefit to hundreds of thousands of people, particularly young people and the long-term unemployed. Of course, the provisions that will allow more people to get off benefit and into work, through changes in the benefit system, will do likewise.
The 10p tax rate will help many low income families and the minimum wage will provide the first real attempt to put a floor under wages and get rid of the appalling poverty pay that exists in many parts of our country. It is fair, it is right, and the fact that it is being opposed so staunchly by the Conservative party only reveals the difference in values between the two political parties.

Mr. Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree that there is a difference between a spouse and a partner?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and the rules that have been applied are the same rules that have been applied under all Governments.

Mr. Hague: They are not the same. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) never applied the rules in the way that the Prime Minister has applied them. If he thinks that there is a difference, will he say whether Ministers who treated the word "spouse" in their code of conduct as meaning "partner" have broken that code?

The Prime Minister: No, they have not.

Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister has made those bland assertions. He published a code of conduct with a great fanfare; he ordered Ministers to obey, not just the spirit, but the letter of that code. The first time that it is not obeyed, he says that it meant something different anyway. Will he now publish a new code of conduct for Ministers so that taxpayers can be clear when they are paying for spouses and when they are paying for partners, and that they are not paying for both at the same time?

The Prime Minister: No.

Mr. Hague: I am sorry that the Prime Minister is so tetchy today. Let me ask him another question. He said that his Government believe in high standards. Let us get this straight—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I want less of that behaviour.

Mr. Hague: Let us get this straight. If it were true that a Minister sacked a civil servant and sought to replace her with a close friend at public expense, that would be unacceptable. Does the Prime Minister agree with that?

The Prime Minister: Of course that would be wrong. That is not, however, what happened. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the particular person was not a career civil servant. She was appointed personally by a former Conservative Foreign Secretary. When her contract came to an end, she was replaced by a career civil servant.

Mr. Hague: Will the Prime Minister agree that the Foreign Secretary's behaviour was certainly secretive, clearly open to misinterpretation, probably unwise and possibly worse? Is it not time, in everyone's interests and so that the Foreign Secretary does not have to use the time in international press conferences to mount a public attack on one of his own office staff, for him to come to the House and give a full statement to clear the matter up?

The Prime Minister: No is the answer to that. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman engages in that type of

question shows how completely useless and pathetic the Conservative Opposition are. Since he appears to be suggesting that the sleaze and scandal that enveloped the previous Conservative Government are the same under the present Government, let me tell him what people objected to. They objected to cash for questions for Conservative Members of Parliament. They objected to money in brown envelopes for Conservatives who became Ministers. They objected to money coming from Chinese drug dealers. They objected to parliamentary Committee reports about Back-Bench Members of Parliament being suppressed before the most recent general election.
You know, Madam Speaker, since he became Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman has not asked a single question on schools, on health, or on crime. He is Leader of the Opposition, and today we have seen why he will stay so.

Mr. Hague: It is not the Opposition who have made this an issue; the behaviour and incompetence of Ministers have made it an issue. People throughout the country think that the way in which Ministers have behaved in recent weeks shows that power has gone to their heads, and, if they have nothing to hide, they should be prepared to come to the House and make a full statement and be accountable to it.

The Prime Minister: Since I am on my feet and the right hon. Gentleman has made mention of other allegations, let me give the House the facts on the so-called amount of money being spent by Ministers. On overseas visits, considerably less money will be spent by the Government this year than was spent by the Conservative Government in their last year. On official residences, including refurbishments, more money was spent by the previous Conservative Government than has been spent by the Government this year. On ministerial hospitality, in the last full year of the previous Government, more than £2 million was spent; this year, we have spent £1 million.
While I am on my feet, on the subject of Downing street receptions, there will be fewer receptions this year, under me, and they will cost less money than under the previous Prime Minister. My case rests.

Mr. McAllion: Friday marks the 26th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Deny, and my right hon. Friend knows that the families of those who were killed and wounded by British Army gunfire on that day have been trying, ever since, to establish the truth of what happened and the truth about who is responsible for what happened. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of this anniversary week to announce his intention to establish an international committee of lawyers to carry out an open, honest and comprehensive inquiry into all the events surrounding Bloody Sunday, so that those matters may be finally laid to rest?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend might have anticipated, we are discussing and considering the


material that has been submitted to us. When we are in a position to make a statement, we shall do so, and it will be announced to the House in the usual way.

Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister might like to address a serious question. Does he rule out the possibility of a referendum on a single currency in this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: As I explained to the right hon. Gentleman last week, we have made it clear that we do not believe that this country will be in a position to join a single currency or to have a referendum on that subject during this Parliament.

Mr. Ashdown: The question that I asked the Prime Minister was whether he rules that possibility out. His answer last week and today was so "majoristic" that it might have come from his predecessor. To the question, "Is it possible to have a referendum on a single currency during this Parliament?", there are three possible answers: yes, no or maybe. Which is it?

The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that we believe neither that there will be a referendum during this Parliament, nor that there should be, for the reasons that I have given. I gave them to the right hon. Gentleman last week, and I shall give them to him again this week. The position is such that the economic convergence necessary simply will not be in place. That is why we have said no.

Mrs. Gilroy: Is not the minimum wage a key part of helping people out of poverty and into work? Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating our hon. Friends who have just completed a marathon twenty-six and a half hours in Standing Committee to make progress on the National Minimum Wage Bill, in the face of ill-founded delaying tactics from the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to point out that a huge benefits bill is paid by this country—more than £3 billion a year—as a result of low pay. It is surely right that we should bring Britain into line with virtually every other civilised country by providing a floor underneath wages, so that they should not fall beneath a certain minimum level. Many countries, including the United States, have even lower levels of unemployment, yet there is a minimum wage. I do not believe that treating people fairly, paying them a decent minimum wage and offering them good job prospects are inconsistent with each other.

Mr. Green: Can the Prime Minister explain how Britain's reputation in the world is improved by having a Minister in his Government who dare not set foot in Belgium because he is wanted for questioning by the Belgian tax authorities?

The Prime Minister: That is rubbish, again. On this smear, the Tories began by claiming that the Paymaster-General had taken money out of the country and avoided paying UK tax. Neither of those allegations is true. The Tories carry on making those allegations because, as ever, they have nothing to say about the important issues of the day.

Mr. Paul Clark: I welcome the decision to abolish the nursery voucher scheme, which was bureaucratic and

wasteful. We know that that will release £126 million towards implementing our pledge to provide a place for every four-year-old who wants one. Young families and those involved in that service provision in my constituency of Gillingham welcome that decision. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the pledge is rapidly implemented, so that we give our children a good start in life?

The Prime Minister: We are making as much progress as we can. We shall be able to fulfil our pledge of nursery places for four-year-olds, then we shall make a start on three-year-olds as well. That is an important part of providing the education system that we need for the 21st century. Across every aspect of education—in primary schools, secondary schools and higher education—we are making progress in raising standards and giving our children the education that they need.

Ministerial Visits

Mr. Edward Davey: When he next plans to visit the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames.

The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Davey: I am disappointed that the Prime Minister is not planning to come to Kingston, as there are some people whom I should like him to meet. Has he heard of the case of the head teacher at St. John's Church of England primary school, who has resigned because he is fed up with having to implement Government education cuts every year? Ofsted described that head teacher as inspirational. Is the Prime Minister happy to lose head teachers of that quality, just to implement Tory spending cuts? Now that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has confirmed that the Treasury has a war chest, will the Prime Minister assure the people of Kingston that his Government will start to invest in education to meet his early years pledge before he reduces income tax to 10p?

The Prime Minister: First, of course I regret any head teacher who does not want to be part of our education system.
In relation to the IFS, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It does not confirm the Liberal Democrats' figures at all. Indeed, it is extremely important that we keep a tight rein on public spending because of the mess that we inherited—a large structural deficit that we must cure. We have to do that.
However, substantially more money is going into education under this Government than under the previous Government. An extra £1 billion is going into next year's budget. There is the £1.2 billion school repairs programme. As I have pointed out before from this Dispatch Box, the Liberal Democrats before the election asked for money to be spent on school repairs, and on current expenditure.

Mr. Davey: This year.

The Prime Minister: We have the school repairs programme, and the money is going in this year. They asked for £500 million. We have given £1.2 million and they still complain about it.

Engagements

Mr. Pike: Until 1 May last year, we had 18 years in which the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. The people in my constituency of Burnley welcome the steps that the Government have taken to address the problems of giving the poor a fairer deal. What other steps does my right hon. Friend consider as priorities to eliminate poverty for those in work and those out of work?

The Prime Minister: The first thing to do to eliminate poverty is to get into work those who are presently out of work and who could and want to work, which is why we are making the largest single investment that any Government have ever made—£3.5 billion into the welfare-to-work programme. That is already helping young people and others to come off the benefit system and into work. Under the Conservative Government, the number of workless households doubled in 20 years. Many people on benefit want to work.
Secondly, the 10p starting rate for tax will help to incentivise many people and reduce some of the problems in the interaction of the tax and benefit system.
Thirdly, of course, the minimum wage will make a difference, because it will allow people some dignity in the pay packet that they get and make it clear that employers cannot undercut other employers by paying poverty pay.

Mrs. Gorman: Given that the Prime Minister and his Government are now in office, and therefore are answerable for their spending, does he agree that the £12 million that was detailed in the national press, and that his Government have squandered on wallpapering, partying and taking their friends and relatives abroad goes against the exhortation that he gave to his own Members of Parliament: that they were not in office to enjoy the trappings of power? Does that not mean that his exhortation has fallen on deaf ears?

The Prime Minister: No. The hon. Lady obviously was not listening to what I said earlier, when I made it clear that, on all those items that the Conservatives are belly-aching about, spending by this Government is less than that by their own Government.
As for the other items that the hon. Lady mentioned—all that stuff about VIP suites and everything—again, the rules are precisely the same. The spending is precisely the same. Those are never criticisms that we made of the Conservatives. The criticisms that we made of them were to do with the conduct of Members of Parliament, in particular taking money for questions. That has not happened under this Government, and never will.

Ms Blears: The Prime Minister has reiterated today his belief that education is the foundation for success in life. Will he join me in congratulating Lowry high school, an inner-city school in Salford that was virtually written off by the Tories—[Interruption]—where school attendance has improved by a massive 20 per cent. in the past 12 months? Does that not show that, with confidence, determination and the support of a Labour Government, we can all succeed? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: Just look at Conservative Members, who were shouting and bawling during that

question. When questions are about schools, they now groan as if they were irrelevant. The education changes that we are putting through are already yielding results. These are difficult times, given the spending proposals that we inherited from the previous Government. But the extra money will get there, the reform will take place, standards will improve and the education revolution that we promised will be delivered.

Mr. Yeo: Why did the Government overrule the unanimous view of all three political parties on West Sussex county council and the view of their own specially appointed expert panel, and insist that West Sussex accept another 13,000 homes over and above the 38,000 already agreed?

The Prime Minister: We did it for precisely the reasons that, under the previous Government, such plans were also altered on several occasions. That happened in relation to Kent, Berkshire, Bedfordshire and several other counties. As Conservative Members keep talking about the green belt, may I say that we are applying precisely the same policy as the previous Government, except that we plan to tighten it to ensure that the green belt is better protected. Once again, the Conservative party defines opposition as opportunism and hypocrisy.

Ms Keeble: Does my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the improvement in primary school test results?

Mr. Soames: What about Cheltenham Ladies College?

Ms Keeble: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in Northamptonshire, the decision to switch funding from the assisted places scheme to primary schools means switching the equivalent of £949,000, which is enough to employ more than 50 extra teachers? Does he agree that that is a powerful sign of the Government's determination to improve education for all? [Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: There they go again—it is unbelievable. What about Cheltenham Ladies college? That is the Conservatives' education priority—[Interruption.] We are trying to raise education standards for all the children of the country. Just look at Conservative Members—they have nothing to say about it. We are getting the extra money from the assisted places scheme and using it to reduce class sizes; we shall have extra money next year; and primary school results are improving already. In both secondary and higher education, we shall achieve results that are the product of investment plus reform. Twenty years of educational betrayal by the Conservatives will be turned round by a new Labour Government.

Mr. Brazier: The Government have shown a lenient and compassionate attitude towards terrorist prisoners, particularly over the Christmas period. Will the Prime Minister turn his mind to the plight of Guardsmen Fisher and Wright, who were convicted of a killing that was carried out on duty, unpremeditated and in dangerous


circumstances? After nearly six years in prison, is it not time that those two young men, who risked their lives to serve all of us, were granted a compassionate release?

The Prime Minister: I understand the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises, but, rather than comment on the individual cases, it may be better if I express my view to him in writing.

Ms Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency of Watford, the previous Government's legacy is an ever-increasing housing problem caused by their refusal to release capital receipts for house building? A constituent who came to my surgery on Friday has been on a council house waiting list for more than 11 years, with no prospect of getting accommodation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to support Hertfordshire county council's plans for building on both urban and limited green-belt areas is right? It will ensure that homes are available to my constituents, that the environment and green belt are protected, and that urban areas are not further packed with housing, taking away the green belt available to my constituents.

The Prime Minister: Yes, and on Hertfordshire my hon. Friend did not mention that, as a result of the proposals over all, there is greater protection of the green belt. In Hertfordshire, as in Newcastle, which the Conservatives have also been going on about, the rules have been applied in precisely the same way as before. The big difference, to which my hon. Friend rightly draws attention, is the additional £900 million from the release of capital receipts that will allow homes to be built and refurbished for people in our constituencies who really need them. As a result of the previous Administration's policies, whereas we used to spend £11 billion on housing investment, we now spend roughly that or more on housing benefit. We must build homes for our people to live in, and clean up the mess and the rubbish left to us after the Conservative years.

Mr. Malins: All hon. Members want to continue the battle against crime: the Prime Minister has said so on many occasions. Is he not making a mistake, so far as the county of Surrey is concerned, by cutting dramatically the budget of the probation service and the police? Does that not send the wrong message? The only people to benefit will be those who practise crime.

The Prime Minister: I do not know enough about the particular circumstances in Surrey, although I shall look into the matter, given the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. Overall spending on the police has increased, not diminished, and is more than the Conservative Government intended to spend. I do not doubt that there are problems with his police authority. Indeed, there are problems in schools and hospitals in many parts of the country: that is what the new Government are addressing. The plain fact of the matter is that we are being more, not less, generous than the Conservative Government whom he supported.

Mrs. Ellman: Does the Prime Minister agree that concentrations of chronic ill health found in constituencies such as mine after 18 years of Tory rule can be tackled only by mounting a major assault on poverty, unemployment, poor housing and social exclusion? Does he also agree that, to be successful in achieving change, efforts are required at national, regional and local levels?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The social exclusion unit is designed precisely to bring together the work of different Government Departments. In the past 20 years, an increased number of people have suffered problems of poor housing, poor educational opportunity, crime, drugs and low levels of employment, which must be tackled together. That is the purpose of the new unit that we have established. The additional money from capital receipts, the welfare-to-work programme and the raising of standards in schools will all play their part in regenerating such areas, many of which are urban areas where levels of unemployment among young people are sometimes as high as 50 per cent. We must tackle unemployment, because it is not just a problem for those individuals; it is a blight on the whole country.

Sir Peter Emery: Can the right hon. Gentleman be happy, as he promotes policies for the unity of the family, at the private actions of his Ministers at the Foreign Office? Would he recommend their behaviour as an example to the rest of the country?

The Prime Minister: There have been Ministers in Conservative Governments whose marriages have broken up and who have remarried. That will happen in our society today. It is typical of Conservatives that they seek to exploit that, and it is beneath the right hon. Gentleman. Let me nail another part of the lie, which is that I used to go on about the private lives of Conservative Ministers. That is rubbish: it is not correct. Conservatives pretend that the problems that they got into with financial sleaze are echoed in the Labour party, so they continue to raise those matters. However, the country will not be fooled.

Mr. Alan Simpson: When the President of the United States rang the Prime Minister to ask about plans to attack Iraq, did my right hon. Friend inform him that there would be no international consensus in support of such adventurism? Whatever plans the President may have, at this time more than any other, he would be well advised to keep them in his pockets.

The Prime Minister: It is foolish to call "adventurism" attempts to bring Saddam Hussein back into line with United Nations Security Council resolutions. In the past few years, the inspectors who have been inspecting the so-called sites in Iraq have uncovered detailed evidence of the building of biological and chemical weapons of warfare and of nuclear weapons. That process carries on the whole time. Saddam Hussein has tried to prevent access to 45 presidential sites. There is no doubt at all about what is going on beneath cover of those sites.
Incidentally, lest people think that this is a case of Saddam Hussein's not having enough money to provide


for his people, let me point out that he is spending billions of dollars on new presidential sites and on weapons of destruction while his people are starving. He could get the money perfectly easily under the food-for-oil provisions, but he is not doing that, because from the very beginning he has been embarked on the process of building up weapons of mass destruction.
Let me say to my hon. Friend that, while it is all very well to make remarks about the President and all the rest of it, it is not very sensible when we are dealing with circumstances in which a dictator is prepared to abuse his power to launch war on his neighbours—and if he is not stopped, and stopped soon, the effects will be worse for the whole world in the long term.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You and your predecessors have often ruled that questions should relate to the work of Ministers. Is it acceptable for questions to be asked that relate to their private lives? Many of us consider such questions to be unacceptable and trivial. I ask you to rule—as you have on other occasions—that questions should relate to Ministers' political work, rather than to matters that do not relate in any way to their political responsibilities.

Madam Speaker: I follow the questioning on these issues carefully, and I am very concerned about it. Such questions were allowed today—which I believe was absolutely correct—and they were properly answered. It is right for the House to hear the questions and to know of the concerns, but also to hear the answers—as we have today.

Mr. Richard Page: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As this is only the third time in 22 years that I have raised a point of order, I hope that I cannot be accused of abusing the privilege that we are given in that regard.
Since the beginning of October, I have been trying to lead an all-party delegation of local councillors from my constituency to the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to debate and ask about the green belt and planning requirements. My request has been refused.
At the beginning of December, I asked the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), whether I could bring an all-party delegation of Hertfordshire MPs to discuss the same matter. On 20 December, I received a letter stating that, as the matter was now not to be called in:
It would not be appropriate for me to offer you or other Hertfordshire Members a meeting as it is now for Hertfordshire County Council
to progress.
You will understand my surprise, Madam Speaker, when I learned within 24 hours that Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were holding a meeting for Labour Members of Parliament only, to discuss exactly the subject that I wanted to discuss. I consider that an example of double standards, and it has prohibited me from representing my constituents who are definitely worried about what is happening.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me some indication of his point of order, and I am grateful to him for so doing.
It is a generally accepted convention of the House that Members should have the right of access to Ministers to discuss constituency issues that lie within the responsibilities of those Ministers. While Ministers may, for good reasons, postpone a meeting from time to time, in my experience it is extremely rare for a request for a meeting to be refused altogether, and I would deplore such an occurrence. At the end of the day, however, that must remain a matter between the Minister and the Member concerned—but I hope that the Minister may reconsider.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the Standing Committee considering the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill—Standing Committee C. After four days, we are still only on line 2, as a result of the conduct of the Bill's supporters.
I think that I can cope with that without your aid and comfort, Madam Speaker. What really concerns me is the fact that other Bills will be prevented from being enacted because of the filibustering of those hon. Members. What worries me more is that some of those Bills are supported not just by Labour Members but by new Labour Members who may not realise that Bills that they have taken such care to present to the House are being blocked by their hon. Friends.
May I refer you, Madam Speaker, to some of the Bills that ought to be on the statute book and which are being blocked—

Madam Speaker: No, I can read the Order Paper.

Mr. Garnier: I am looking at pages 278 and 279 of today's Order Paper.

Madam Speaker: I read it this morning.

Mr. Garnier: I thought you might have done, Madam Speaker. Those pages contain some worthy Bills that are supported by Labour Members, and they are being denied passage to the statute book because of the conduct in Committee.

Madam Speaker: I have to concern myself with the Committee to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred in his point of order. I am sad to learn about the lack of progress in that Committee, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues are working hard to make progress on the Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill so that it reaches the statute book. Is not that correct?

Mr. Garnier: Yes, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: If there is a serious delay in Committee, its Chairman must report the matter to me and I shall seek to deal with it. However, my view now is that I want to see some progress in that Committee, so that other hon. Members can have their Bills taken forward.

Door Supervisors (Registration)

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish national standards for door supervisors; to establish a national register of door supervisors; and for connected purposes.
More than 120 million people a year in Britain enjoy a good night out in night clubs and discotheques, and I understand that an equally large number enjoy a good evening out in the pub and that millions, especially young people, go to pop concerts and festivals. At all those venues, door supervisors, popularly known as bouncers, play a crucial role in public safety. If the public are to have confidence in those supervisors, they must be trained, competent and honest.
Proposals for a national registration scheme for door supervisors are not new. In 1995, the Select Committee on Home Affairs reported on the whole private security industry, and strongly recommended a national registration scheme. Unfortunately, the previous Government refused to follow that recommendation, and instead contented themselves with giving guidance to local authorities on setting up voluntary schemes for door supervisors.
More than 100 local councils have set up such local registration schemes, usually in partnership with the police. They operate through public entertainments licences, and in some places also through magistrates' liquor licences. Those local schemes can have beneficial effects.
When Newcastle introduced a scheme in 1992, it registered 700 local door supervisors, and there was a 75 per cent. reduction in violent and drug-related offences involving door supervisors. Milton Keynes has ClubWatch, a scheme which has excellent co-operation with the police, the local authority and local clubs.
However, there are problems with local schemes. Standards vary from one place to another, and door supervisors have to be registered for each local authority within whose area they work. For example, Milton Keynes recognises the training given by Westminster council but, paradoxically, not that given by Northampton council, which is an adjacent authority.
In some areas there are no controls, and the criminal tendency tends to move to those areas from the more regulated ones. Pubs are not always included, and hon. Members will be aware that pubs are increasingly engaging door supervisors.
There is an additional problem that is relevant to my constituency. It contains a large outdoor venue called the National Bowl, where large pop concerts and other events are occasionally held. It is quite impractical for the Milton Keynes council scheme to register sufficient door supervisors for that event, so people are brought in from outside.
The added urgency about action on registration schemes is that there has been a recent challenge to the legal basis on which councils operate the schemes. Although the London boroughs have been given specific powers to regulate doormen under part V of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, councils outside London rely on the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Act 1992. It is being challenged that, although the 1982 Act applies in licensing premises, it does not necessarily allow the licensing of individual doormen. Thanet council, which has been the subject of a challenge, has consequently suspended its scheme.
Weaknesses in local schemes are exploited by criminals, and a minority of door supervisors pose a very real threat to public safety. There have been numerous reports of assaults on customers by door supervisors, some of which have been so serious that deaths have occurred. Deaths have been reported in London, Bedfordshire and Cleveland.
This week, I was contacted by Mrs. June Steel, of Cheltenham, who has collected 2,500 signatures to a petition demanding registration of door supervisors. Her 28-year-old son Paul was assaulted by a bouncer outside a nightclub. Although he was punched only once, it was sufficient to leave him brain-damaged. The door supervisor was employed by a security firm operating from Birmingham. He had only just been released from prison, where he had been serving a sentence for manslaughter. His employers were unaware of that.
The problem of door supervisors at pop concerts and pop festivals has only recently been brought to my attention. Hon. Members will be aware that, although it depends on the band, many pop concerts have audiences consisting of extremely young girls, or are particularly attractive to young teenagers. There have been instances in which people with convictions for rape and even for paedophile offences have been employed as door supervisors at pop concerts, which is clearly highly unsatisfactory and is putting young people at risk.
Door supervisors have also been involved in the organisation of the supply of illegal drugs in clubs in London, Durham and Cleveland. The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), who has been very active on the issue of registration, can testify to the violent and intimidatory tactics of door supervisors in his area.
A few years ago, a survey was conducted of 476 door supervisors in Merseyside that showed that three supervisors had murder and manslaughter convictions; two were out on bail; 32 had weapons and firearms convictions; and 101 had convictions for assault. Moreover, the Chancellor might be interested to know that 97 of those 476 door supervisors were claiming unemployment benefit while working, and were therefore part of the black economy—reducing still further the status of door supervisors and adding to their involvement in criminal activity.
The current situation should not be allowed to continue, and I know that the Government are proposing to introduce legislation on the entire private security industry. The United Kingdom is apparently the only country in the European Union that does not regulate its security industry.
The issues relating to property security are not the same as those relating to the security of people. There is an urgent need to regulate the leisure security industry now, both to prevent further injury and death to members of the public and as a contribution to the Government's overall strategy to curb drug abuse. The public who would be most affected by regulating door supervisors are mainly young people, making it all the more urgent that the House take action.
Mandatory national registration is supported by all the major players in the industry. The British Entertainment and Discotheque Association—representing 700 operators, large and small—supports mandatory national registration, which it would wish to be financed through charges to the industry so that it would cost the taxpayer not a penny. BEDA believes that registration is particularly important for one-venue operators, which are very vulnerable to protection rackets organised by door supervisor agencies.
The GMB trade union and the National Association of Registered Door Supervisors both support a national register, because they believe that it would eliminate disreputable operators and recognise the value of properly qualified door supervisors. The police, through the Association of Chief Police Officers, support it.
My Bill would ensure that, wherever one goes in the United Kingdom, one can be sure that door supervisors have been checked to eliminate those with relevant convictions for violence, including sexual violence, and for drugs or weapons offences. They would also have completed a nationally recognised training course.
People would be trained in crowd control, in safe ways of restraining people—because customers can be very aggressive when under the influence of drugs or alcohol—in recognising drug abuse and knowing how to act in response it, and in first aid and fire safety. It would be made an offence to act as a door supervisor without being on the national register. That would cover all sorts of venues—pubs as well as night clubs, pop concerts and festivals.
Interestingly, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 gives such protection to football crowds. Stewards at matches have to be trained. Clubgoers and others enjoying themselves on a good night out have a right to expect the same protection. This Bill would give it to them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Phyllis Starkey, Ms Karen Buck, Ms Beverley Hughes, Miss Melanie Johnson, Mr. Lawrie Quinn, Mr. Jonathan Shaw, Angela Smith and Dr. Alan Whitehead.

DOOR SUPERVISORS (REGISTRATION)

Dr. Starkey accordingly presented a Bill to establish national standards for door supervisors; to establish a national register of door supervisors; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 13 March, and to be printed [Bill 114].

SCOTLAND BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee),
That the Report [22nd January] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. McFall.]

Question agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Committee in its Resolution.—[Mr. McFall.]

Following is the report of the Business Committee [22 January]:

That—
(1) the order in which proceedings in Committee are taken shall be Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 20, Schedule 2, Clause 21, Schedule 3, Clauses 22 to 28, Schedule 4, Clauses 29 to 91, Schedule 6, Clauses 92 to 109, Schedule 5, New Clauses, New Schedules, Clause 110, Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 111 to 116.
(2) the eight days allotted under the Order [13th January] to proceedings in Committee shall be allotted in the manner shown in the Table set out below and each part of the proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion (in accordance with the Order) at the time specified in the third column of the Table.


TABLE


Allotted day
Proceedings in Committee
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First day
Clause 1 (to the end of subsection (2))
7:00 p.m.



Clause 1 (remaining proceedings)




Schedule 1




Clauses 2 to 17
10:00 p.m.


Second day
Clauses 18 to 20




Schedule 2




Clause 21




Schedule 3




Clauses 22 to 28




Schedule 4




Clauses 29 to 40
10:00 p.m.


Third to eighth days
Remaining proceedings (according to time limits to be determined by a further report or further reports of the Business Committee)
10:00 p.m. on the eighth day

Orders of the Day — Scotland Bill

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

Clause 1

THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

Mr. Michael Ancram: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 8, at end insert—
'(1A) Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland.'.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 79, in clause 27, page 13, leave out lines 30 and 31.
Amendment No. 169, in clause 27, page 13, line 30, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.
Amendment No. 23, in clause 27, page 13, line 31, at end add
'in relation to reserved matters'.
Amendment No. 198, in clause 27, page 13, line 31, at end add
'which may not be amended or repealed by the Scottish Parliament'.
Amendment No. 189, in clause 35, page 16, line 44, leave out
'have effect subject to this Act'
and insert
'shall be construed together with this Act, and those sections of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707 which relate to Scotland shall together with this Act be known as the "Government of Scotland Act"'.
The question, That clause 35 stand part of the Bill.
Amendment No. 3, in clause 116, page 52, line 19, after 'the', insert 'Government of.

Mr. Ancram: I welcome the fact that we are considering such a constitutional measure in a Committee of the whole House. As happens on these occasions, groups of amendments tend to be fairly widespread. It always fascinates me to see which amendments are grouped together and how far through the Bill we go on each group.
Amendment No. 3 relates to almost the very end of the Bill. It seeks to change its title to the "Government of Scotland Bill." The reason is consistency. The constitutional Bill relating to Wales is called the Government of Wales Bill. Indeed, the last time that there was devolution in the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland—it was under the Government of Ireland Act 1920.
As part of the devolutionary package, there would be some merit in such consistency. The Secretary of State might like to take the suggestion seriously and give it some consideration. There is not a great deal of party

political force behind it, but it would make the statute book rather tidier. I know that, as a Scottish lawyer—as I am myself—the Secretary of State likes tidiness.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Sam Galbraith): An Edinburgh lawyer.

Mr. Ancram: As the Minister says, I was an Edinburgh lawyer. The Secretary of State will remember that I practised most of the time in the Glasgow High Court, sometimes under his beneficent instruction.
Amendments Nos. 2, 169 and 198 all relate to what has become known in popular jargon as the supremacy question. Although they refer to different parts of the Bill, they should be looked at together. Throughout the referendum campaign, and on Second Reading, the Secretary of State claimed that the proposals would strengthen the United Kingdom. The amendments are addressed to that important assertion.
We accept that the democratic case for a Scottish Parliament has been made in the referendum. We must now ensure that it fulfils the claims made for it, and avoids the pitfalls with which it could be surrounded and against which we have warned in recent months.
The Bill is a major constitutional measure. That is why the entire Committee stage is being taken on the Floor of the House. Like all constitutional reforms, it could go one way or the other. It could create turmoil, as Sir Malcolm Rifkind predicted at the end of the referendum. He saw the danger not of the break-up of the United Kingdom, but of a generation of constitutional turmoil. On the other hand, it could be used to create stability. As there will be devolution and a Scottish Parliament, it is our common task on both sides of the House to try to ensure the latter.
To achieve stability and to fulfil the claim that the measure will strengthen the United Kingdom, the reform must be subject to clear constitutional anchors. The first is the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. Alex Salmond: At what stage did the right hon. Gentleman stop believing that devolution would inevitably lead to independence, as the Conservative party claimed during the referendum campaign, and start believing that it could go one way or the other, as he has said this afternoon? Can he put his finger on a precise date?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman will have difficulty in finding any occasion on which I said that the process would be inevitable. I said—and I repeat—that the proposals contain flaws that could lead to that break-up which I wish to avoid. Since the referendum, I have made it clear that our responsibility is to try to cure those flaws, and to create stability and balance where there is currently instability and imbalance.
As I was saying, to establish stability constitutional measures have to meet four constitutional anchors. The first is the sovereignty of Parliament, which is of great importance in this country because we do not have a written constitution. The sovereignty of this House and its ability to decide on the constitutional position are essential parts of the stability of the constitution.

Mr. James Wallace: As a distinguished Scots Queen's Counsel, how does the right


hon. Gentleman square what he has just said with what Lord President Cooper said in the case of MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate? He said:
The principle of the unlimited sovereignty of Parliament is a distinctively English principle which has no counterpart in Scottish constitutional law.
We are dealing with the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Ancram: At the moment, all I have said is that I believe that one of the anchors is the sovereignty of Parliament. I will deal with that point, because we must look at the distinction between legal and political sovereignty, which is recognised and is of importance.
I would merely say that, in the case mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman—MacCormick v. the Lord Advocate—that remark was not in the main judgment, but was part of the obiter dicta. If I remember my constitutional law correctly, there are many other remarks which can be drawn upon from that case—not only from Lord Cooper, but from other judges—which, while interesting, have no legal implication. I will come on to that.
The second anchor is the integrity of the United Kingdom, even if constitutional changes are made within it. I hope that that will be common ground across the Dispatch Boxes, and that we are looking to maintain the integrity of the UK in what is being done. The third anchor is the importance of the constitutional monarchy, and the fourth is the balance of the interests of an individual with the powers of the state. Those are the four anchors against which all constitutional measures should be tested. In this instance, there are two specific anchors to which I wish to return.

Mr. George Galloway: Unlike the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), I am not so much interested in when the sinner repented as in that he has repented. I welcome it, and we should not be churlish about welcoming the transformation in the views of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) on the subject.
In that context, I make a sincere plea to the right hon. Gentleman. One of the best contributions that he could make to making a success of the project is to drop the dog-in-the-manger churlishness which characterised his performance and those of some of his hon. Friends on the previous occasion we debated the Bill. I honestly cannot see how that is even in the interests of his own party. Devolution is now the settled will of the people, and the Bill will pass through this House. Let us make a success of it, and approach it constructively and with good will. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman at this early stage to do so in today's debate.

Mr. Ancram: I will always take lessons in constructiveness and good will from the hon. Gentleman, given his past record. I hear what he has to say; I merely say this. I have said that I believe that devolution contains great dangers to the United Kingdom—I would be less than honest if I did not continue to say that. I believe also that this Bill has substantial flaws, which I believe enhance that danger. I wish to see those flaws cured.
I also take the view that it is dangerous ever to suggest—as the hon. Gentleman appears to be doing—that the Bill is somehow perfect and incapable of

amendment, and that anyone criticising it is somehow criticising the future existence of a Scottish Parliament. I have said that I accept that there will be a Scottish Parliament, but I would be doing less than my job and my duty if I failed to scrutinise the Bill carefully, and, when I saw gaps in it, to say so. If that is churlishness or being a dog in the manger, I am afraid that that is the job not only of the Opposition, but of Back Benchers from all parties; that is the duty and responsibility of the House of Commons.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will look seriously at the flaws which exist, and will desist from the suggestion that it is somehow heresy to criticise in any form any of the proposals that are made. His case might have been stronger had the referendum been held after the publication of the Bill, so that the people of Scotland could have said, "Yes, we agree with every single word; every dot, tittle and comma"—or whatever the phrase is. That was not the case, and we have a responsibility to look closely at the Bill.
For a start, we know that devolving power inevitably creates a momentum of what has been called unbundling, and creates the appearance of a slippery slope towards separation and the break-up of the UK. At best, it creates the prospect of turmoil. This is compounded by the dangerous flaws in the Bill, which will create imbalance, instability and the threat of Anglo-Scottish confrontation if we do not deal with them now. To counteract that, there is a necessity to ensure the application of two of the anchors I mentioned—the integrity of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty of Parliament.
As it stands, the underlying dynamic of the legislation has the effect of undermining the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is consistent with the view that devolution is not so much an event as a process; that this is a start, not an end; and that there is all for nationalists to play for in trying to achieve their goal of independence.
This is a test of the Secretary of State's undertaking about whether the Bill will strengthen the United Kingdom. I believe that, as it stands, it cannot deliver that. To create credibility and stability, we need to establish that the concept of the Bill is not federalism, which by definition divides powers, but devolution, which delegates them, and that it is also not quasi-federalism; if it were, the clause would not be a part of it.
The Bill is drafted to suggest that we are to have devolution, with delegated powers, not federalism, with divided powers. The clause helps to establish that, but it begs several questions. We know that it is replicated from section 4(4) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and presumably it is there to fulfil the same function of reassurance.
We must accept that, legally, the clause adds nothing to existing sovereignty, but the absence of such a reassurance in the Northern Ireland context, at least, could have been regarded as significant. I suspect that the same could have been said in this context, and that is why the clause is there; but it is not satisfactory as it stands. It does not state, for instance, whether, if the United Kingdom Parliament were to make laws for Scotland, they would take precedence and prevent further amendment or repeal by Scottish Parliament legislation, or whether they could be the beginning of a shuttlecock game between the two Parliaments.
On Second Reading, I asked whether private Members' legislation could be included, and I think that the Minister said no. I hope that he has reconsidered, because a power for this Parliament to legislate in Scotland must inevitably include the power for a private Member's Bill to be part of such legislation.
As it stands, the clause could be a cockpit for a struggle between the two legislatures. The power to legislate could be within the vires of this Parliament, because it is sovereign, while the power to repeal legislation, because it was not a reserved matter, would be open to the Scottish Parliament, and legislation could be batted back and forth, with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council unable to make a decision, because both Parliaments would effectively be acting within their vires. If I am wrong about that, I shall be pleased to be corrected; but that is my concern about the clause.
That is why we want to amend the clause through amendments Nos. 169 and 198. We want to ensure that, if an Act of Parliament is passed relating to Scottish matters, that Act will be incapable of repeal or amendment by the Scottish Parliament. It is a power that would, I believe, be very rarely used, but it is relevant in making the clause credible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman says that the power would be very rarely used. Can he give an example of circumstances in which it could be used?

Mr. Ancram: Only a hypothetical example: the House might decide to pass a private Member's Bill that included Scotland and affected a matter that was not reserved to the House—there is nothing in the clause to prevent it from doing so—and the danger is that the Scottish Parliament could decide that, as the matter was not reserved, it wanted to repeal or amend it; then, in my reading of the clause, this Parliament would have the power to establish that law if it wanted to.

Mr. Galloway: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ancram: No.
I said that it would happen rarely. In constitutional experience, the way in which responsible parliaments work means that such occasions would very rarely occur. The experience of Northern Ireland in the Stormont period underlines that. Once again, I make the point that, where there is such a danger, we should pre-empt it by legislating in the way that makes it least likely to happen.

Mr. Salmond: The right hon. Gentleman is not pre-empting conflict but trying to consolidate the sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. Does he think that it would be constructive—let us put it that way—for a Back-Bench Member of this Parliament or the Government to legislate on devolved matters? If not, why is he trying to enshrine that right in the legislation?

Mr. Ancram: For the reason that I have already given, and one that the hon. Gentleman obviously has not yet taken on board. If one accepts—I know that he does not, but the Secretary of State does—that this Parliament remains sovereign, it is important that no legislation

allows for that sovereignty to be constantly undermined, as I have said could hypothetically be the case under clause 27.
I have tabled the amendment because I believe that, if clause 27 is to last, we need to make it as effective as it can be. I believe that we need a further clause, and that is what I want to deal with next.

Mr. Galloway: I invited the right hon. Gentleman, and he seemed to respond, to approach these matters constructively. What could be more destructive or certain to lead to turmoil—to borrow his words—than such an occasion as he postulates? A Member of this House could exploit the amendment to create conflict on constitutional grounds between the two Parliaments. Is that the constructive law-making to which we can look forward from the right hon. Gentleman for the rest of the day?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. I am saying that we must try to prevent conflict arising. I do not want to see conflict, but where a clause, by its definition and nature, allows conflicts to arise—as clause 1 does—it is right to amend it to prevent confrontation and to avoid making the shuttlecock legislation that I fear.
Clause 1 was put in the Bill not by me but by the Secretary of State and the Government. All I am saying is that, if this is to be the clause that underlines the sovereignty of Parliament, it should be drafted in such a way as to achieve that.
Our responsibility is to pre-empt confrontation. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) asks me to hope that all will be perfect in a perfect world, and that conflict will never arise. That is not the right way to deal with constitutional legislation.

Mr. Wallace: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that, when this Parliament passed the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which gave the Church of Scotland, its general assembly and its courts sovereignty over all matters within the spiritual domain of the Church, Westminster retained the sovereign right to remove those powers at a later stage? If that is his position, is he not provoking a constitutional difficulty with the Church of Scotland?

Mr. Ancram: I am always keen to avoid confrontation with any Church. I understand that this is a matter of debate in another place. I shall be interested in the outcome of that debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is being made against the Government's proposal in another place. I shall read carefully the outcome of that dispute.
We propose a broader amendment that avoids this rather intricate argument. I am looking for a clearer statement of the supremacy of this Parliament of the United Kingdom, which fulfils in terms the requirements of the two anchors I mentioned, and which has respectable precedents in section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. The amendment can hold no fears for those who proclaim, as does the Secretary of State and as did the Prime Minister in a felicitous phrase that I need not repeat to the House, that sovereignty and consequently the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament resides in this House and this Parliament.
The purpose of my amendment, as was the purpose of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, is to make the position clear in language that is comprehensive, unambiguous and reassuring. I readily concede that it can have no added legal effect to the legal sovereignty that already adheres, but neither can clause 27. There is, however—this is the point that was raised with me earlier—the legal concept of sovereignty, which is understood, and the political concept. In a dynamic situation, such as that which the Bill creates, the legal concept is not of itself sufficient. Had it been so, it would not have been possible for the Scottish convention in its claim of rights to assert that sovereignty rested with the Scottish people. That was an assertion of political sovereignty which, left unchallenged, would seriously undermine the United Kingdom's integrity.
I do not question the reality stated some years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) that one could not hold a component part of the UK within the Union against the wishes of the majority of the people of that part, but that is the ultimate definition of political sovereignty, not what we are dealing with here.
At issue here is the ability of a Scottish Parliament to use its legislative and devolved constitutional muscle to challenge the Westminster Parliament's political sovereignty and to create the slippery slope so beloved of nationalists, but apparently eschewed by the Secretary of State and certainly rejected by us as inimical to the integrity of the United Kingdom.
The amendment, by definition, is declamatory, but it proclaims the political sovereignty and the supremacy of this Parliament. It contradicts the slippery slope and it redirects the Bill's dynamic in a way which is consistent with the claims made by the Secretary of State that the Scottish Parliament will strengthen the United Kingdom. It will give reassurance to those in Scotland who voted for the Parliament but would recoil from any further move towards separation. It will anger those nationalists who proclaim Westminster sovereign to be a fiction, but it does lay down the anchor. It is a beacon of intent that the phrase "devolution within the United Kingdom" means what it says and that any future moves to use this legislation or the Parliament that it creates to undermine the Union would be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Bill and the House.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: As I am not a lawyer and am new to this kind of thing, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what exactly he means? As I understand it, clause 27, as amended, will say that the Westminster Parliament could make Acts relating to matters that are under the control of the Scottish Parliament and that the Scottish Parliament could not reverse that. If that is so, could the Westminster Parliament introduce a completely new education or health system in Scotland against the wishes of the Scottish Parliament? That is what I understand to be the effect of the amendment.

Mr. Ancram: No, that is the effect of the clause, unamended. Clause 27 states:
This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.

It does not say "only over reserved matters"; it says
to make laws for Scotland.
That includes matters which are not reserved. It must, by definition.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): indicated dissent.

Mr. Ancram: If it does not include matters which are not reserved, where does it say so in the Bill? I have looked closely. The whole point about the clause, as was the case in the Government of Ireland Act from which it was drawn, is that it reasserts the supremacy of this House over all areas of legislation.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) makes the point that I was making about clause 27. My concern was that that could have a knock-on effect between the two Parliaments, something which amendment No. 198 seeks to avoid by adding the words
which may not be amended or repealed by the Scottish Parliament.
That makes it clear that this Parliament's sovereignty exists and is established by clause 27.
I left clause 27 for the very reason that I find it an unsatisfactory vehicle. It is made better by my amendment, but if that is not successful I hope that I can persuade the Secretary of State that amendment No. 2 is a more secure way of achieving his and my purpose.
Amendment No. 2 is, in many ways, a test of the Secretary of State's good faith. Nothing in it is inconsistent with any claim that he has made in promoting devolution and the Bill. It encapsulates the undertakings that he gave so fervently and persistently during the referendum about the Bill's effects on the United Kingdom, and for him to accept the amendment would be a sign of good faith to the Scottish people to whom he gave those assurances. If he turns it down—

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Donald Dewar): Which amendment?

Mr. Ancram: Amendment No. 2—my main amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman turns it down, his words will turn to dust in his mouth, and many who put their trust in him, as he asked them to do, will feel that that trust has been betrayed.
I know from previous debates that we shall be challenged yet again as to why we argue this case. We shall be told that it is somehow contrary to the spirit of devolution—indeed, the hon. Member for Kelvin has already made that point. We shall be warned in menacing tones that we are committing heresy against the settled will of the Scottish people. We shall not be intimidated by such rhetoric, nor will we accept such accusations.

Mr. Dewar: I am a little bit puzzled. I do not want words to turn to dust in my mouth, as that sounds like a rather uncomfortable experience, so perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain this to me.
As I understand it, the words he wishes to insert in the Bill are largely based on section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920; but the words we are using are based on the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. 1 do not want to make this a competition between the two Acts,


but presumably the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's words is that the 1973 Act was a betrayal of people in Ireland, because it was so much weaker than 1920 Act. Does he not think it a more likely explanation that in 1973 it was seen that plain, straightforward and rather more modern language was preferable?

Mr. Ancram: If that had been the case, section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act would have been repealed, as were many other parts of that Act, but it was not. Section 75, from which my amendment is drawn, could have been repealed at that stage, but it was not, and it is still extant. Both provisions are in place in relation to Northern Ireland, and all I am suggesting in my amendment is that both provisions should also be available in the Scotland Bill.

Mr. John McAllion: I have just returned from a visit to Northern Ireland. I spoke to groups in Belfast and Derry, and none of them want to see a return of the Stormont Parliament, so why are right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House trying to write into the new Scotland Bill a situation like that of the Stormont Parliament in Northern Ireland? If the Irish people do not want it, the Scottish people certainly do not want it imposed on them, either.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman makes my case for me. The power by which the Stormont Parliament was prorogued and direct rule established at the time of the civil rights marches was exercised under the supremacy of the Westminster Parliament, as stated and asserted in section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act. I am trying to introduce a similar provision into the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman feels that protection is needed against that sort of thing, the amendment offers precisely that protection.
The reason why we have tabled the amendment and why we press it now is that we believe not only in the United Kingdom, but—more important—in the central and vital role that Scotland can play within the United Kingdom. I am prepared to confess that I am unashamedly a unionist. I believe that the Union is an enormous benefit to the people within these islands, and a great force for good beyond them.
I believe, too, that Scotland has benefited from the Union and has contributed disproportionately, but magnificently, to its history. The partnership continues to hold out great promise and prospects to Scotland, even with a devolved Parliament; and to undermine those prospects would be a disservice to the people of Scotland and their interests.
I want the Union to prevail, with Scotland continuing to play her historic role within it. The amendment proclaims that Union; it asserts the supremacy of the Parliament of that Union; and it establishes devolution within that Union. I call on all those who believe in and value the United Kingdom, and who, above all, believe in and value the role of a devolved Scotland within it, to support this historic amendment.

Mr. Dalyell: I fear that beacons of intent do not always make good and stable law. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made a rather "have your cake and eat it" speech in favour of his "have your cake and eat it" amendments.

Because of the guillotine time problem, I shall concentrate on clause 27(7), which states:
This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
Subsection (7) may conceivably be true in an arcane legal sense, but in the political reality of 1998 it is palpably misleading and about as true as it would be to say that the Queen can veto any legislation.
Let us pretend no longer that when the Bill becomes law, Westminster will remain sovereign; it will not. Westminster is—it is better to be very candid about this—effectively stripped of sovereignty. There is no glass ceiling and we should not imagine that the Bill does or can put a tight cap on Holyrood's powers.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Devizes was whistling in the wind when he talked about the integrity of the United Kingdom; the integrity of the United Kingdom may not be possible, given this Bill. How can the House of Commons bestow legislative responsibility on another institution without diminishing its own powers?
If the House of Commons is ceding to another elected authority the right to rule in education, housing, health and other gut issues of politics, how can our hitherto monopoly of sovereignty remain intact and undiminished? Frankly, of course, it cannot. As soon as Members of the Scottish Parliament are elected in 1999, they will behave as a separate constitutional entity when dealing with domestic affairs.
Furthermore, heaven help the Members of the Scottish Parliament if they are not perceived to do things differently. In the eyes of those who wanted Holyrood, that is what they are for. If they do not sort out tuition fees for students quickly, electors will ask, "Why go to all the trouble, and why have all the hoo-hah and expense of setting up Holyrood?"
There is no glass ceiling. I know one reason why—it is that any glass ceiling, or explicit limit on Holyrood's freedom to evolve into independence, would create enormous party problems for, for example, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). Substituting flimsy cellophane for glass was part of the price of his support at the referendum.
Another deeper reason why there can be no glass ceiling relates to political imperatives. What happens when the expectations of Holyrood are unfulfilled? What happens about lone parents? I bet every candidate who goes before a constituency selection conference for the Labour party or any other party, including the Conservative party, will be asked his or her views on lone parents.
Scotland will be strewn with commitments that lone parent benefit will be restored to the full. The leadership of Holyrood Members of Parliament, fresh from the hustings, will then come to the Treasury in Great George street, London, and say, "We need more money to restore lone parent benefit." Doubtless they will say the same about a host of other perceived ills.
Are we sure that English Government Members of Parliament will acquiesce in giving more money per capita to the Scots to sort out lone parent benefit and many matters that are, purportedly, outwith Holyrood's powers—for that matter, tuition fees are within Holyrood's powers—than to their own constituents,


faced with diminishing lone parent benefit and tuition fees? The notion that all will be sweetness and light defies human nature and all political experience.

Mr. Wallace: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and, knowing the care with which he approaches such matters, I hesitate to contradict him, but will he not accept that lone parent benefit is not a devolved subject? It is a reserved subject; there is therefore no question of anyone going to the Treasury to ask for more money to pay more lone parent benefit in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman may make the point that expectations may be raised that cannot be delivered, but candidates should be on notice of which powers are held by the Parliament for which they are standing.

Mr. Dalyell: Of course; the hon. and learned Gentleman is right—I said that it was outwith the powers, but whether it will be perceived as being outwith the powers is a totally different matter. There will be enormous pressure, will there not, to get reserved powers—

Mr. Gorrie: indicated dissent.

Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. This is a difference of judgment, but it is a judgment about human nature. The expectations that have been aroused in Scotland on welfare and other subjects are enormous, and I do not think that it is within human or political nature—although, doubtless in good faith, Ministers have proposed it—to respect the division of powers on gut political issues when there is the whole panoply of a Scottish Parliament.
The difficulty lies in the assumption that there will be an eternally amiable relationship. I wish I thought that that could happen, but it is very difficult. As was said in a previous debate on the Government of Wales Bill—the fascinating debate on Welsh devolution, at which I have been a constant attender—a Czech and Slovak problem will gradually develop. It will be relatively amiable to start with, but, once there is strife on delicate welfare reform subjects, one will get into a variety of difficulties.
What is the Secretary of State's attitude to the Scottish National party and others—I do not mean this pejoratively—using Holyrood as a forum in which to promote independence? Is it not true that, as he is reported as telling the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan on 24 July 1997, it would be "futile" to oppose the will of the Scottish people? He is quoted as saying:
The boundary between reserved and devolved powers may be adjusted as the need arises.
Therefore, we should not pretend that this is a lasting settlement; it is really a process. Power devolved is not power retained. The idea that Westminster is the ultimate authority will be little more than a formality.
I conclude by asking a question, as I hope to do, keeping any interventions short. Under subsection (7) of clause 27, will the status of the United Kingdom Parliament in relation to the Scottish Parliament be rather like that of the Queen as titular head of state? Does not what the subsection says about the powers of the United

Kingdom Parliament sound like the Queen's ability to veto parliamentary legislation, which we know, in reality, to be impossible?

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) painted a gloomy picture. I am under no illusions that there will not, from time to time, be tensions between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. Such tensions are present in any system. Canadians have told me that tensions often exist between their federal Government and provincial Governments.
We are kidding ourselves if we suppose that we are embarking on something novel in the experience of countries worldwide. In fact, we are probably in the minority in having such a centralised system; it is commonplace to have divisions of responsibilities between different layers of government. Although, undoubtedly, there will be tensions, we will be obliged to find a means of resolving what will then be a political reality. We hope that we are grown-up adults and can resolve those tensions maturely, without always resorting to haranguing.
Unfortunately, the political system that we have grown used to over the years, breeds in us a view that any political dispute or debate can be resolved only by conflict and confrontation. However, the Bill is a product of the constitutional convention, where we defied the critics who said that it would be impossible for the parties that joined the constitutional convention, working by consensus, to produce a set of proposals. The fact that we achieved it gives hope that there can be a new style of politics. We will have to learn new tricks and new ways of resolving conflicts, because it will not always be sweetness and light.
I do not accept that, because there will be tensions and friction, that will inevitably lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom—far from it. I have always strongly believed that the swiftest road to breaking up the United Kingdom would have been to deny the people of Scotland the legitimate aspirations that they have expressed time and again for more say over our domestic agenda.

The lead amendment shows the Conservative party defending the traditional position of Westminster sovereignty. I do not accept the argument of parliamentary sovereignty as advanced by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I do not believe that that ever was the constitutional position in Scotland.
When I was studying constitutional law at Downing college, Cambridge, in the early 1970s, we would go through interminable legal problems about trying to entrench powers so that Acts could be amended only with a two-thirds majority, and discuss whether a subsequent Westminster Parliament could overturn that and amend the Act with a simple majority. It was fascinating and enjoyable, but did not advance us very far.
The proposition of Westminster's sovereignty was very much an English one. The workings of Professor Dicey.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. and learned Gentleman raises authorities from the past. I raise an authority from the present and refer him to the debate on the White Paper, when the Secretary of State for Scotland said:
We accept that sovereignty within a devolved system lies with the United Kingdom Parliament."—[Official Report, 31 July 1997; Vol. 299, c. 457.]


Does the hon. and learned Gentleman disclaim that authority, which is a Scottish authority?

Mr. Wallace: The Secretary of State will no doubt reply to the debate and answer for himself. I am advancing my view and that of my party. I do not accept the sovereignty of Westminster, and I am on the record—the right hon. Gentleman could have cited me—as saying on several occasions that I do not accept it. That is an English concept.
I am prepared to concede that many people think that Westminster is sovereign, but we must deal with that reality—we cannot wish it away. It is obvious from comments such as those of the right hon. Gentleman that the notion of Westminster's sovereignty is so ingrained that it is a political reality, which we must face. I do not believe that, as he claims, it has any legal substance, and I think that its political substance will diminish.
The right hon. Gentleman need not rely solely on the quote that I offered him earlier from Lord President Cooper in MacCormick v. Lord Advocate. If he goes through the court cases, he will find many older authorities, particularly in relation to cases involving the Church and the protection given to the Church of Scotland and the Presbyterian form of government under the treaty and Acts of Union, which gave rise to legal cases in the 19th century.
In the case, Minister of Prestonkirk v. Earl of Wemyss in 1808, the Lord President stated:
The people of Scotland, at the period of the Union, were most careful to preserve unalterably all the rights of their presbyterian church as by law established".
It is interesting that clause 35 almost restates the treaty of Union and the various Acts of Union which, as the Secretary of State well knows, entrench the rights of the Presbyterian form of Church government in Scotland.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not want to get involved in a pedantic review of 18th or 19th-century law. The Act of Union entrenched certain rights in Scotland. That was its virtue. One of the consequences that has been discussed in the Committee is that if the Bill is enacted, the Scottish Parliament will be able to undo some of that. The point is that parliamentary sovereignty was accepted.

Mr. Wallace: No, I do not believe that for one moment. The concept of parliamentary sovereignty was alien to the history of Scotland. Hon. Members must accept that what was established in 1707 and augmented in 1801 when Ireland came into the Union was a Parliament of the United Kingdom. It was not a Parliament of England, of Scotland or of Ireland. It was a Parliament of the United Kingdom. There is no earthly reason why the constitutional theories of a Parliament of England should take precedence over the constitutional theories of any other part of what was an equal Union.
I do not accept that the English concept became a concept of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, the Church of Scotland Act 1921 makes it clear that this Parliament recognised that there are limitations on its sovereignty, and the Church of Scotland, under its declaratory articles, which were approved by Parliament, recognised that there were areas in which Westminster was no longer sovereign, and that there would be no question of Westminster intervening again.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) referred to the concept of popular sovereignty in the Claim of Right, which so many hon. Members signed in 1989, when we acknowledged
the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs.
It has an historic resonance, from the declaration of Arbroath, the 1689 Claim of Right, through to today. It is a practical form of considering how sovereignty should operate.
I think that it was Lord Howe who said that it is not like virginity—it is not something that one does or does not have; it is quite capable of being pooled. [Laughter.] Not pulled—pooled.
The fact that rules and regulations emanate from Brussels causes much unhappiness, particularly to Conservative Members, but if the people want and accept that some of their sovereignty should be exercised by the European Union, the Westminster Parliament or an Edinburgh Parliament, it is a perfectly legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty. It is a useful concept in an age when there are different layers of government.
If popular sovereignty was such that the people of Scotland wanted independence, we would have to accept that, but I do not believe that they want it. In general election after general election, when they have been given the opportunity to vote for candidates standing for independence, only 20 to 25 per cent. have ever done so. There is no popular demand for independence. As we saw on 11 September, the people of Scotland exercised their popular sovereignty by voting for the proposals that are substantially contained in the Bill, and that is what will be delivered to them.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is confusing the concept of sovereignty with the concept of powers, when he mentions the passing of powers to the European Union. Is he saying that the Scottish Churches would not be subject to rulings that might be made by the European Court of Justice? If Parliament were to pass powers to that court, the court's rulings would be binding on everything in the United Kingdom and would affect matters concerning the Scottish Churches. The sovereignty of the Scottish Churches would have been passed, by a sovereign act of this Parliament, to the European Court of Justice. To that extent, this Parliament can legislate on any matter. It is not bound by its predecessor. That is the meaning of the sovereignty of Parliament.

Mr. Wallace: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's proposition. I was making the point that, under the Church of Scotland Act 1921, sovereignty over matters that were specifically laid out in the Act was passed to the Church of Scotland and to the courts of the Church of Scotland. Therefore, this Parliament did not have the sovereignty to pass to Brussels under the European Communities Act 1972. As the hon. Gentleman knows, one cannot pass what one does not have; there is a strong argument that what we are discussing does not affect the areas over which the Westminster Parliament did not have sovereignty.

Mr. Grieve: I have heard of the acquis communautaire, but this is the acquis Wallace. Is it not a doctrine that,


once laws have gone, they can never be taken back? That is completely contrary to the principles on which this Parliament operates, and it will be completely contrary to the principles on which the Parliament in Edinburgh will operate.

Mr. Wallace: The hon. Gentleman is highlighting the fundamental difference between us. I do not accept that that is the principle on which this Parliament operates. He may think that it is.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member is a nationalist.

Mr. Wallace: I am not. It is not a particularly nationalist proposition. As I clearly said, the people can have their sovereignty exercised by the Westminster Parliament over a range of subjects, including social security, defence, monetary policy and taxation. The people chose, as they showed in their votes on 11 September, to allow sovereignty to be exercised by the Westminster Parliament.

Mr. Salmond: Lady Thatcher said on a number of occasions that, if the people of Scotland voted for independence, independence was what they should have, exercising their right to sovereignty. Does that and the Conservative party's logic make Lady Thatcher a supporter of independence?

Mr. Wallace: No, it simply highlights the obsessive way in which the Conservative party is wedded to a concept that we do not accept. That does not make us nationalists; there is simply a gulf. The amendment has given us a nice opportunity for academic consideration, but ultimately it is wrong. If accepted, it would incorporate into law an entirely alien concept.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: What is the hon. and learned Gentleman's view of the important point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)— that the Bill appears to operate as a one-way ratchet? The hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Scottish people did not vote for complete independence; do not the Government's proposals play into the hands of the nationalists? If there were a nationalist majority in the Scottish Parliament, it would inevitably lead to complete independence, whatever he wishes.

Mr. Wallace: I do not believe that for one moment. On the contrary, the Bill satisfies the Scottish people's aspirations because it gives them what they want. Even without devolution, Scottish National party members standing as candidates for Westminster elections could get 50 per cent. or more of the vote, which could be regarded as the road to independence. The fact that that has never happened confirms my belief that it is not what the Scottish people want; nor will their appetite be whetted for it.
As the Bill will satisfy the aspirations of the overwhelming majority of Scottish people, it is more likely to secure the integrity of the United Kingdom, which the right hon. Member for Devizes said was one of his objectives. That would be better done under a federalist system. The right hon. Member for Devizes

once espoused federalism and suggested that a federal framework of government be adopted. Those words appeared in a pamphlet published by Mr. Michael Ancram of 6 Ainslie place, Edinburgh 3. It is not dated, but membership of the Thistle group at that time was 10 shillings per annum. It is a well-written pamphlet analysing what is wrong with the Westminster system of government—problems that have been exacerbated in the past 30 years.

Dr. Liam Fox: As one of the few post-decimalisation Members, I was tempted to ask what a shilling was.
Am I correct to assume that the hon. and learned Gentleman's interpretation of clause 27(7) is the same as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—that the Bill would give this Parliament the power to make laws for Scotland on all issues, including reserved powers?

Mr. Wallace: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing me neatly on to the point that I was about to deal with anyway. Incidentally, a shilling was worth 5p, unless one was not quite the full shilling.
Amendment No. 23, which was tabled by me, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and others, seeks to clarify precisely what clause 27(7) means. I interpret it in a similar way to the right hon. Member for Devizes—that it could allow the Westminster Parliament to make laws in respect of non-reserved matters. It would not necessarily be exercised in a way deliberately designed to cause confrontation, but could arise in the context of a private Member's Bill, perhaps one introduced in another place, with a provision that appeared to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom but which trespassed on a non-reserved power. That would be unfortunate and could lead to confusion, which is why we have made it clear that it should happen only in regard to reserved powers.
The amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Devizes would consolidate the friction. If Westminster had the power to legislate on a devolved subject and the Scottish Parliament could not repeal or amend that legislation, it would lead to damaging confrontation and friction, which the right hon. Gentleman vows he wants to avoid. The Secretary of State may give us an assurance that that is not the intention of clause 27(7), but clarification is necessary, and amendment No. 23 is a useful way of achieving that.
Although the Bill provides for references to the judicial committee of the Privy Council if it is thought that the Scottish Parliament has acted ultra vires, I am not so clear about what would happen if Westminster passed legislation that it could be argued was related to a non-reserved matter. Someone in Scotland could challenge legislation on the basis that it did not apply in Scotland. I do not know whether provision could be made for judicial determination if an action was, as it were, ultra vires in the opposite direction. I hope that that situation can be clarified, because, as it stands, it could lead to unnecessary conflict and confrontation.

Mr. Galloway: I am not lawyer, an historian or, for that matter, a member of the Church of Scotland, so I shall not pursue hon. Members down ecclesiastical, historical or legal avenues. I speak as a mere jobbing politician: a humble agitator.

Mr. Fox: Humble?

Mr. Galloway: Well, an agitator then.
From my perspective, both the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) are correct. The legal position is undoubtedly that the Westminster Parliament is sovereign, but the political reality is that the people are sovereign. That seems to me so obvious that perhaps only a non-lawyer can see it. The point was no doubt conceded in the hon. and learned Member's reference to Lord Cooper's judgment. Much more contemporary and more important is the fact that it was conceded by the stance taken by Lady Thatcher and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).
Notwithstanding the Westminster Parliament's legal sovereignty, if the popular will in any constituent national part of the United Kingdom were to leave the Union, it would have to be allowed to do so. That is what the Claim of Right meant, and it is why, with the exception of my dear hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), we all signed it, why none of us resile from it now, and why we are not contradicting ourselves in this debate.
We were clearly addressing the political right of the Scottish people ultimately to choose whether to remain in the Union as it was, to leave it altogether, or to amend our participation in it. That is why we had a Scottish Constitutional Convention, and why I was proud to be a member of it: indeed, I was one of the first people to call for it. In an article in the now sadly lamented Radical Scotland magazine more than 15 years ago, I called for a convention of the Scottish people to find a political path towards the exercise of popular sovereignty.
I am disappointed in the right hon. Member for Devizes. Perhaps unwisely, he mentioned my record. I may have some fun with his, as the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland did. There is a lack of credibility in someone who was absolutely seized and persuaded of the need to reform the United Kingdom's structures—he was a devolutionist, even a federalist—who then metamorphosed into an absolute defender of the status quo, and who now comes among us saying that he wants to make the legislation work. He approaches his work in a churlish, dog-in-the-manger way, which makes the launch of the legislation far less harmonious that it could have been. It damages the political position of his party, which would do better to turn the page on its previous opposition to devolved government. The Conservatives should pick up the ball and run with it, as other Conservative parties in other parts of the world have done very successfully.
Catalonia has a Conservative Government. There is no contradiction between being a believer in the free-enterprise system—the market economy—and supporting devolved government. It is about time that Conservative Members' prehistoric attitudes changed.
The right hon. Member for Devizes told us that he was concerned about these matters because he wished to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom. He said that he was a Unionist. But the Conservative party has been the main recruiting sergeant for the break-up of the United Kingdom, as we have spent 18 years—the best part of the past two decades—pointing out to its members. Every time they rode roughshod over the clear will of the Scottish people—every time they appeared oblivious to the fact that only a small minority of Scottish electors supported their programme—and rammed Thatcherite policies down our throats, they added to the column of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
The right hon. Member for Devizes supported the poll tax. Perhaps he still does; I do not know whether that is a part of his record that he now wishes to rewrite. In any event, the introduction of the poll tax, which was visited on the Scottish people—who did not vote for it—a full year before it was introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom, was the single biggest act that risked ruining the unity of these islands. It drove more people into the column of the Scottish National party than any other political act in history. Those are the facts, and it is about time that Opposition Members showed some humility.
The Bill is intended to preserve a measure of unity in these islands—a measure of unity which was gravely imperilled by nearly 20 years of Thatcherite government.

Sir Robert Smith: Another key element damaged the credibility of the current constitutional arrangements. Some Conservative Members happily voted for the poll tax in Scotland, and then, when it was introduced and affected their constituents, campaigned vociferously to get it abolished and removed. The fact that they failed to scrutinise the legislation when it did not apply to their constituents, and recognised the damage that it was doing only when it did apply to them, demonstrates the need for the Scottish Parliament.

The Chairman: Order. Wide though the grouping of the amendments may be, hon. Members should come back within their compass.

Mr. Galloway: My point is that the carelessness of Opposition Members when their party was in government for all that time led to the imperilling of the stability of the Union. This is an honest attempt to stabilise the position, and to create a new settlement that can lead to a more stable and harmonious existence for the people of these islands.

Mr. Ancram: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two short questions? First, he referred to my record on devolution before 1970. Will he remind the Committee of the Labour party's position on devolution in the years before 1970? Secondly, in the light of what he is saying, will he tell us whether he agrees with clause 27(7)?

Mr. Galloway: Keir Hardie, the founder of the Labour party, was the first campaigner for Scottish government. For the vast majority of the time during which the party has existed—nearly a century—we have supported home rule in this country.
By its defence of the Union—its nothing less, no change, no surrender attitude—the Conservative party has consistently imperilled, in the last century and in this,


the prospects of unity in these islands. If there had been a speedy and constructive passage of home rule legislation for Ireland when it was only home rule that the Irish wanted, we might not have to re-create a council of the isles as a means of trying to end the blood and thunder within these islands. We and the Irish people might have had a more harmonious century if we had recognised the need, which was expressed by elected politicians in Ireland at that time, for a new settlement for home rule rather than breaking up the island. A new settlement is what we are trying to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow—I mean that sincerely: there is occasionally a "but", as such a phrase is usually the precursor to a criticism, but there is not in this case—is right to say that there can be no perspex or glass ceilings. There can be no manacles, shackles or ties imposed by this place, whatever is said in the White Paper that the right hon. Member for Devizes is holding. If I am right—and I think that I have a measure of agreement in the Committee—in the end it is popular sovereignty which counts, and no attempt to place a cap on the Holyrood Parliament is worth a hill of beans.
The United Kingdom can survive only if its people want it to survive: it can persist only if there is consent. There is nothing that we can do legally to force people to want to stay in the United Kingdom, but we can strike attitudes that will help to make it more likely that they will want to remain. That is why I appealed for an end to the dog-in-the-manger approach by Conservatives.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman speaks about devolution bringing harmony to the people of these islands. Surely it will create uncertainty among some people, depending on where they live. The devolution Bills will mean that we will no longer be equal citizens.

Mr. Galloway: The hon. Gentleman seems oblivious to the fact that the status quo had ceased to be an option. More and more people were deciding that they wanted to opt out of the Union. The political party of which the hon. Gentleman is a member supported no change, no surrender Unionism, and was completely annihilated in the May general election. The party came back for more in the September referendum when it again hoisted its banner of no change, no surrender Unionism. Again, Conservatives were routed from the field.
There is some nobility in continually stepping up to the mark, being smacked on the nose and falling down, but there must come a point when even Conservative Members realise that the game is up, that there will be home rule for Scotland and that we might as well try to make it the best possible kind of home rule. We might as well launch the ship with a bottle of champagne and good will rather than be dragged screaming and kicking into the operation.

Mr. Dalyell: I thank my hon. Friend, with whom I am united in the unpopular cause of opposing military action against Iraq, for giving way. Does he agree that Westminster will effectively be stripped of sovereignty?

Mr. Galloway: There is no doubt that, in legal terms, it will not be—not in the sense that, as Enoch Powell said,

power devolved is power retained. Effectively, it will be, because we are giving a whole tranche of Scottish life to the Scottish Parliament to administer and legislate for. That is what the Bill says that we will do. Moreover, the message sent by the referendum victory and by the Labour Government's general election victory in May was that we should do that. So why cannot we do it with good grace?

Dr. Fox: With the greatest respect, that is not what the Bill says. Section 27(7) states:
This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland.
Regardless of what the hon. Gentleman wants the Bill to say, that is not what it says.

5 pm

Mr. Galloway: We are again dealing with the dichotomy that I tried to identify in the first few moments of my speech between the legal position and the real-life position. Any hon. Member who wanted to legislate in the House on non-reserved Scottish matters after the Scottish Parliament was up, running and effectively dealing with Scottish life would be a wrecker, a saboteur and a recruiting sergeant for the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan. Anyone who tried to throw such a spanner in the works could not possibly have at heart the Union of our islands or the unity of the people of our islands. He or she would be guilty of political provocation.
As I am not a lawyer, I am not all that concerned with the small print of the issue. I should like hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to launch this ship with good will and fairness.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that he believed in the sovereignty of this Parliament. It seems that there is disagreement in the Committee over whether this Parliament is sovereign and will remain so. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to bolster the Government's position by stating explicitly that hon. Members, in passing the Bill, do not believe that we are detracting from the sovereignty of the House. Just as the hon. Gentleman does not want this Parliament to provoke a crisis with the Scottish Parliament, it is equally incumbent on the Scottish Parliament not to provoke a crisis with the rest of the United Kingdom by asserting sovereignty over matters which it claims for itself but which this Parliament does not feel that it has devolved to it. Accepting our amendment would explicitly state that belief, so that everyone understands the ground rules at the outset.

Mr. Galloway: Surely the amendment would do the precise opposite. We are dealing with the ability of this Parliament and even of Back Benchers, in private Members' Bills—to table legislation on non-reserved matters and to describe that legislation as sovereign. That would be a provocation to the Scottish Parliament.
Why are we going to all the trouble of creating a Scottish Parliament and of devolving certain matters to it if we are leaving open the possibility of hon. Members mischievously wrecking or sabotaging the settlement by tabling legislation in the House on matters that have properly been devolved to the Scottish Parliament?
Either I have expressed myself poorly or the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) has misheard me. I did not begin my speech by saying that I accept the House's sovereignty. I do not believe that the House is sovereign over even the English people, never mind the Scottish people. I believe in popular sovereignty. All sovereignty rests not with us and not with this building—with these bricks, mortar and timber—as admirable it is, and as much as I love it—I do love it, and I hope to stay here—[Laughter.] I am serious about that. This is a very precious place, and many great freedoms have been fought for and won here. I love this place very much, and I hope to stay here until they carry me out in a box. However, I do not think that it is sovereign. The people who sent us here are sovereign. They are the ones who ultimately make the decision.
There is no contradiction. The House's sovereignty over England and, arguably, over the new Scottish Parliament has undoubtedly been written down in law. In real terms, however, if the people decide that they want to change the arrangements in our islands, they have the sovereign right to do so. Long ago, even the right hon. Member for Huntingdon accepted that. In real life, we should not be hung up on such a legalistic argument. Opposition Members should seize the opportunity, which is fading fast, to accept their defeat with good grace and take a constructive stance on these matters, rather than be seen by the Scots, whom they will soon be asking for votes, to be dragged kicking and screaming down every last inch of this tortuous path.

Mr. Salmond: Following the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway), I wonder whether a role is emerging for Scottish National party, Liberal Democrat and Labour Members to protect the Scottish Conservative party from the English Conservative party and the undoubted effects of its rhetoric on the already diminished prospects of colleagues north of the border.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) moved the lead amendment in such a mild way that it sounds almost reasonable—until one looks at the language in it. Amendment No. 2 says:
Notwithstanding the establishment of the Parliament, or anything contained in this Act, the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland.
It does not even refer to property in Scotland. It refers to all things in Scotland, bright and beautiful and otherwise. I am sure that a gentleman called Kipling would have been an enthusiastic backer of such an amendment.
One could phrase a clause on parliamentary sovereignty differently. I remember that, when I was a small child, I used to believe that if I shut my eyes nobody could see me. I am starting to think that the Conservative party has assumed that mentality. It believes that, if it asserts something strongly and powerfully enough, the world will tilt on its axis and reality will change to suit its prejudices.
The right hon. Member for Devizes said that he wanted the language of the amendment to contradict the slippery slope. Either the slope is slippery or it is not. Contradicting it will not alter its angle or slipperiness. There is more to politics and life than asserting things in a rather offensive way and believing that, the more one does so, the stronger that makes one's position. Often,

such behaviour makes one's position rather weaker. It is certainly making the position of the right hon. Gentleman's beleaguered Scottish colleagues very weak. They must sigh every time a Conservative Member gets to his or her feet to make a speech in such a manner, and tries to look upon Scotland as property, a thing, a possession of the unblemished sovereignty of Parliament.
I want particularly to speak to amendment Nos. 79 and 23, which were tabled by the Scottish National party and the Liberal Democrats. The amendments could offer a middle way out of the difficulty. [Interruption.] I am always a reasonable man at heart, as my friends well know.
I join the hon. Member for Kelvin in his argument about popular sovereignty. That is my anchor as I regard constitutional questions. I believe in the popular mandate and popular sovereignty of the Scottish people.

Mr. John Home Robertson: They have never given it.

Mr. Salmond: That remains to be determined. It will be decided by the people at subsequent elections. It is their choice. Believing in the popular sovereignty of the people does not mean that one believes in the inevitability of one's victory. It just means that one believes that people have the right to choose and decide. Believing it does not make one a nationalist; it just makes one a democrat.
I should like to protect the Secretary of State from his hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) for a second. I looked up the reference that the hon. Member for Linlithgow quoted with such a flourish when he talked about the futility of glass ceilings. In response to a question that I asked about the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine their own constitutional future, the Secretary of State rightly said:
If I did try to build such barriers, they would be futile and without effect. At the end of the day, in practical politics, what matters is what people want. If the hon. Gentleman is able to carry the people of Scotland, no doubt he will be able to advance his cause."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1049.]
The Secretary of State was not signing up to the Scottish National party in that statement. In fact, he has never been a member of the SNP, unlike some in his ministerial team. I am referring to the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson)—I would not want the accusation to be left drifting in the wind. The Secretary of State was making a democratic point that has been accepted by every responsible politician for many years, including the past two leaders of the Conservative party. The right of the people of Scotland to choose their constitutional future is a basic point of democracy. They can choose no change—which has been rejected—devolution, federalism or independence as a state in the European Union.

Mr. Grieve: Is not the problem with the notion of popular sovereignty the fact that it means the rule of the person or group of people who are on top in a given place at a given time? Even Scotland is a legal concept, just as England is. The fact that devolution is going through is a recognition of the legal entity of Scotland and the majority vote in the devolution referendum. We want to add to the Bill a restatement of the legal position. Once we start on the road of popular sovereignty, there is no stopping.


Orkney and Shetland may one day assert their popular sovereignty to remove themselves from Scotland. That argument can carry on ad infinitum.

Mr. Salmond: I do not claim that the right of national self-determination is an easy concept to define, but the United Nations was confident enough about it to put it in its founding charter. If the United Nations coped with the concept, the Committee—even the Conservatives—should manage to grapple with it.
It is no secret that parties in the Committee and in Scotland have argued for national self-determination. A quotation from 1992 put the issue neatly:
The central issue at stake is that of sovereignty. The unwritten British constitution, founded on the notion of absolute sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament gives Scotland no constitutional right of democratic control of its own affairs, let alone provides the right of national self-determination or fundamental individual rights for its citizens. This concept of sovereignty has always been unacceptable to the Scottish constitutional tradition of limited government or popular sovereignty. Today, in the modern world, it is no longer acceptable in practice to us.
That was the democracy declaration, signed—uniquely in recent Scottish politics—by the Scottish National party, by the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish) on behalf of the Labour party and by the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. That definition has been publicly embraced by three of the political parties in Scotland in front of 25,000 people. There were quite a few witnesses. It was not done in a secret cabal. We embraced a concept that we believed represented the way forward. We did so despite our different constitutional aims, because we agreed that the people had the right to decide. If we keep that as our constitutional anchor, we shall not go too far wrong.
The Conservatives' position is strange. They are arguing, in a flourish of rhetoric, that the Bill needs to be strengthened with more constitutional guarantees to maintain the essential integrity of the United Kingdom, but they also point, rightly, to clause 27(7), saying that the issue is already in the Bill. If it is already dealt with in the Bill, what is the point of the Conservative amendments, other than to give the right hon. Member for Devizes a chance to make a speech? They are probably right. Clause 27(7) unwisely gives the Westminster Parliament the right to legislate on all matters in Scotland, unaffected by the devolution legislation.
There is some dubiety and dispute about that. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Devizes asked the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office whether a private Member's Bill on a devolved matter for Scotland would be binding on Scotland. The Minister said no. The Clerks in the House of Commons say yes, under the terms of clause 27(7). The Secretary of State should tell us whether the answer is yes or no—as we hope and as the Minister, like many of us, thought.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) asked the same Minister whether the Scottish Parliament legislation could be cancelled by the Westminster Parliament. He replied:
Within the areas of devolved responsibility, laws passed by the Scottish Parliament are not open to cancellation."—[Official Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 155.]

15.15 pm
The Minister, whose impeccable devolution credentials are well known to all in the House, was apparently under the impression on Second Reading that the Bill did not provide for the Westminster rules okay override, which says that any matter can still be determined by the Westminster Parliament. I do not accuse him of misleading the House. It was reasonable for him to believe that. Before we looked at the Bill in detail, most of us believed that the power of the United Kingdom Parliament to make laws for Scotland on reserved matters was not affected by the Bill, but devolved matters would be the preserve of Edinburgh. Amendment No. 23 would make that change, offering the Secretary of State the clarification necessary to bring the Bill into line with what the Minister said two weeks ago.
There is general agreement in the House about popular self-determination—the right of the Scottish people to decide. The Scottish people will determine the constitutional direction of Scotland at the ballot box. No sensible person would gainsay that process. The Conservatives are clumsily suggesting putting in manacles, shackles and safeguards in language carried with a flourish. That will cause them great difficulty in Scotland. However, we should not stick with the Bill as it stands. Clause 27(7) gives an opening for the wrecking behaviour that the hon. Member for Kelvin mentioned. We need clarification, so that we can agree that the provision refers to reserved powers.
It is no secret that I believe in independence for Scotland. I have not kept that from the Scottish people. I also believe that it will happen through the ballot box when the Scottish people so determine. At the referendum, the people of Scotland exercised a sovereign decision to vote for the Bill. The Secretary of State and I said that, if the Bill passes, Westminster will not again be allowed to impose a poll tax on the Scottish people. Scottish parliamentarians will decide that form of local government taxation. The manifest injustice of the poll tax will never again be visited on the people of Scotland. Clause 27(7) opens the door to that. It is not just the "Westminster rules, okay" clause; it is the poll tax clause. It is not okay with the people of Scotland and it is not faithful to the arguments that the Secretary of State, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland and I, along with many others, deployed in the referendum campaign.
We asked the Scottish people to exercise their sovereignty on powers that would remain at Westminster and powers that could go to Scotland in the knowledge that, at any time in the future, that settlement could be changed. It could be changed back if the Scottish people did not want the Parliament and decided to go back into a unitary state. We could change to federalism or to independence on the vote of the Scottish people. Given what the people voted for on 11 September, it is not sensible for the Bill to open the door to legislation being passed unilaterally in this Parliament, on devolved matters that the Scottish people decided should go to the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Dalyell: Through the hon. Gentleman, may I ask my Front-Bench colleagues whether the reincarnation of


Lady Thatcher, using clause 27(7), could impose a poll tax? That is a factual question to which I do not know the answer.

Mr. Salmond: I am happy to act as a messenger for the hon. Gentleman, and I relay that question to the Secretary of State.
The clause does open the door, and I think it unnecessary. The settlement that the people voted for on 11 September would be satisfied by amendment No. 23, which would make it specific that the legislation that we expect to be carried by Westminster would be on reserved matters and not on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That would bring the Bill into line with the rhetoric of the Minister of State two weeks ago.

Mr. McAllion: I was delighted by the previous intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I had not realised that Lady Thatcher required reincarnation—I had not heard the good news. If it is true, I say, "Rejoice, rejoice."
I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), but I do agree that the biggest problem facing the Tory party in Scotland is the Tory party in Westminster. As I listened to the speeches from Tory Members, it occurred to me that perhaps Bill Walker and Phil Gallie were not all that bad. They were transformed in the mind's eye into significant political figures; not because absence makes the heart grow fonder, but because of the pathetic performance of the Anglo-Tory establishment here in Westminster.
To this day, the Tories have not got it into their heads that the situation has changed dramatically in Scotland following the referendum on 11 September. It is time that the Tory party changed to reflect the differences in Scotland. Unless it does so, it will not recover in any sense in Scotland, but will remain a party of England—a party dominated by England. In complete contradiction to the Tory party claim, it will be the party not of the Union, but of only one part of the Union, which has nothing to say to Scotland, Wales or, increasingly, Northern Ireland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) said that perhaps only a non-lawyer could see that the legal claim to sovereignty does not matter because, in practical terms, what matters in the real world is popular sovereignty. He was being hard on lawyers in saying that. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is a distinguished lawyer and, in a recent exchange with me, he said that the people were sovereign. So even lawyers understand that the people are sovereign, which makes it all the more bizarre that they require to take part in this debate.
The reality is that the people are sovereign—there is nothing that this House, this Parliament or any hon. Member can do to change that. The people will decide whether the Union survives. The people will decide whether Scotland becomes separate and independent. No politician can stop the people making that decision.

Dr. Fox: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McAllion: I will give way to—[Interruption.] I was going to say that I would give way to the more intelligent hon. Gentleman, but there is no choice. I shall give way to the Front-Bench Member.

Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman probably made the wrong choice on this occasion. We have made it clear on

many occasions that, should Scotland wish to leave the Union, it would be able to do so. However, is it not reasonable that, while any part of the UK remains within the Union, this Parliament should remain the ultimate legislative power?

Mr. McAllion: No, that is not reasonable. It is a very old-fashioned way of looking at the concept of political sovereignty and, as I develop my speech, I shall refer to the modern way of looking at sovereignty. I am very much a moderniser in my own party. I, for one, am against clinging to the past and to the ancien regime that goes back to Edward I, the "Hammer of the Scots". I want to move forward to the 21st century and not go back to 1707, as so many hon. Members who have taken part in the debate want.

Mr. Grieve: The notion of popular sovereignty that the hon. Gentleman puts forward will take us not to the 21st century but back to the dark ages. If I disagreed with him on the principle of sovereignty, I could just walk across the Floor and bonk him on the head, but I shall resist the temptation. Either we have a legal structure that is accepted—which is why this devolution Bill is going through—and the will of the Scottish electorate, as expressed in the referendum, is accepted, or there is no legal structure at all and the hon. Gentleman is justifying his position on something with no legal structure.

The Chairman: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—not while I am in the Chair.

Mr. McAllion: I am tempted to say to the hon. Gentleman, "Come on, then," but I shall resist that temptation. He talked about going back to the dark ages. If a time traveller from 1707 came here, he would immediately recognise all the essentials of this Chamber and this Parliament. Nothing much has changed. We have the same Speaker and Deputy Speaker in the Chair and the same red line—[Interruption.] Well, not the same person in the Chair, but the same post. We have Her Majesty's Government, Her Majesty's official Opposition, the same manner of addressing one another as hon. Members and so on. The same powers are exercised not, as then, through the monarch, but through the Prime Minister. In essence, this constitution and this Parliament have never changed. We have never moved from the 18th century—never mind moving to the 21st century.

Mr. Dalyell: What about the women?

Mr. McAllion: That is a welcome change. However, 50 per cent. of the Scottish Parliament will be made up of women—something this Parliament could never achieve. I am being diverted from my remarks.
In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Kelvin tried to persuade the Tories to come to terms with the reality of Scottish devolution. He said that there was no inherent contradiction between belief in a free-enterprise economy and a belief in home rule for one's own country. I am sure that there is no contradiction, but I hope that it does not become a requirement.

Mr. Galloway: Would my hon. Friend—I mean that sincerely—allow me? The point I was making, which


does not seem to have penetrated to Opposition Members, is that the Government of Catalonia is a right-wing, Conservative capitalist Government. The Government of Bavaria is a right-wing, Conservative, capitalist, Catholic Government. None of those right-wing parties has any problem in administering, governing and legislating in one part of a bigger state. Why should it be so difficult for Conservative Members to swallow that? I honestly cannot understand that.

Mr. McAllion: I agree. Modern European history shows that the parties most clearly identified with nationalism were traditionally the right-wing parties. Nationalism was a right-wing cause for so long. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it something of a mission in his life to win back nationalism for the left—well, the centre left. I should not want to be accused of attacking my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister by calling him left wing. Everywhere else, parties of the right embrace nationalism and embrace their country. Only in Scotland does the party of the right refuse to embrace its own country, and instead continues to want to see its country governed from outwith its borders.

Mr. Jenkin: We do not demur from the concept of sovereignty resting with the people but, as in any popular democracy, the sovereignty of the people is vested in institutions. In Germany or Spain, sovereignty is vested in the German or Spanish constitution. The people of the United States vest their sovereignty in the constitution of the United States and swear allegiance to the constitution. We swear allegiance to the Crown and to Parliament. Our constitution is the sovereign Parliament—we do not have a constitution codified in any single document. It is written in many Acts of Parliament and is stored in conventions and practices but, ultimately, the sovereignty of the British people is vested in this Parliament. That is what it is to be part of the United Kingdom. If—

The Chairman: Order. I did not call the hon. Gentleman to make a speech. If he is making an intervention, he must keep it short.

Mr. Jenkin: If any part of the United Kingdom wants to withdraw that sovereignty from this Parliament, it is in effect saying that it is on the way to ceasing to be part of United Kingdom.

Mr. McAllion: I disagree fundamentally. The hon. Gentleman described the constitution as it was before, but there is no reason why it should be frozen in time, and sovereignty should always reside with the Crown in Parliament. There is no reason why the constitution should have only one Parliament or why sovereignty cannot be shared. Indeed, Westminster was stripped of its sovereignty a long time ago, when the Single European Act was pushed through by a Conservative Administration. The Crown in Parliament does not rule in all the areas now governed by the European Parliament, and this Parliament had better come to terms with that reality and start learning how to share sovereignty.

Mr. Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman represents the part of Dundee from which my own Scots family comes. He talks of the sovereignty of the people, his hopes for a future sovereign Scottish Parliament, and the Prime Minister's mission to create it. What did his constituents think when the Prime Minister spoke of the powers of the new Scottish Parliament being equivalent to those of a parish council?

Mr. McAllion: The Prime Minister was completely misrepresented. My constituents had every opportunity to make up their minds, as that alleged reference was made long before the general election, and they came out in record numbers to vote Labour. The people of Dundee have already spoken. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman disguises his Dundee accent very well.

Mr. Shepherd: As the hon. Gentleman will know, I also subscribe to the sovereignty of "We, the people". The essence of that doctrine is democracy. We, as equal citizens, are the elected representatives from among our fellow citizens, and we come together in an institutional arrangement. That is the essence that concerns many of us in this debate. The residue of the arrangements in the Bill may mean that we are no longer equal citizens. That is why some of us argue this case.

Mr. McAllion: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, that the legislation is an answer to Scotland's problems within the United Kingdom, but not to England's. Of course, it has implications for the rest of the United Kingdom. I have long argued that the English people have neglected their place within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. They have always assumed that this was an English Parliament, and that the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish came along to join it.
That was never the case. This has always been a British Parliament. The equality for which the hon. Gentleman rightly argues can be found only when the English people wake up to the demand for English home rule. That will be the final piece in the jigsaw that will lead to stability in the constitutional arrangements in this island.
I accept that the establishment of a Scottish Parliament will dynamically affect the rest of the United Kingdom and that further changes will have to follow, but I see that as a good step that will lead to a better form of government not only for Scotland but for everyone in the United Kingdom, because the English people will rightly say that they want further change, and they will have my support when they come to that conclusion, as I believe the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) did some time ago.
The concept of Westminster sovereignty goes much wider and much deeper than merely retaining the United Kingdom as a single entity. It is only since I have taken part in this debate that it has been pointed out that sovereignty rests not with Parliament but with the Queen in Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow said that the Queen's veto is only theoretical, and that there are no circumstances in which she would ever veto legislation that had been passed by both Houses of Parliament, but we do not know what the circumstances may be in the future.
Incidentally, I hope that the House of Lords will not be there for much longer. I have never understood how democracy is strengthened by laws that are passed by a


democratically elected Parliament being subject to the assent of an institution that is unelected and hereditary. That does not strengthen democracy; it weakens it. We cannot go into the 21st century arguing for that form of sovereignty; it belongs to history and is no longer exercised anywhere else in the world. It is time that people in this island woke up to that reality.
The powers exercised through Parliament are not always exercised by Parliament. Every hon. Member knows that, although the powers of royal patronage may not be used by the Queen, they are certainly used by the Prime Minister of the day in an extremely undemocratic way. That is not a criticism of the present Prime Minister.
I was here when one Prime Minister used the payroll vote—the ability to appoint more than 100 paid positions relating to government—to gain control for the Government party of the day in a completely undemocratic way. I was here when the country went to war without the House being allowed to vote on it. The Prime Minister of the day sent the troops into action, and all that we could do was debate a motion on whether we should adjourn the House. I was also here when the Prime Minister of the day appointed thousands upon thousands of people to paid positions on quangos, which gave him enormous influence.
That undemocratic use of patronage is all wrapped up in the idea of Westminster sovereignty—the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. That is not the kind of sovereignty that we can ask anyone in the United Kingdom to accept in the future. We want a new kind of democracy that will bring us into line with democracies in the rest of the world, instead of being stuck in the 18th century, with power centralised not only geographically in London but in the office of the Prime Minister.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, who has made many great speeches, has long recognised that Parliament is continually undermined by the Executive, and that the constitutional theory that the Executive is held to account by the legislature is reversed in practice: the Executive has long controlled the legislature, and I cannot remember its being beaten roundly for getting policies wrong. The whipping system and powers of patronage are used to ensure that Governments can force through bad legislation. It is time for us to wake up to that reality.
The impact of Europe will continue. Let us not kid ourselves. It did not finish with the Single European Act. Economic and monetary union will come along and there will be a single currency. Further powers will be stripped from Parliament, from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and from the Prime Minister as First Lord of the Treasury. Changes will happen in any case, and my argument is that we should go with the flow and try to apply the new principle of subsidiarity.
Sovereignty will be shared at the levels of Europe, of the UK, and of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The principle of subsidiarity should determine how that is done. When decisions can be taken close to the people, they should be. That is why we are introducing devolution for Scotland.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my assertion that the devolution Bills that are

being pushed through are part of the plan to create a federal Europe of regions? Does he think that the United Kingdom should go that way?

Mr. McAllion: I voted against joining the European Union a long time ago—I would describe myself now as pro-European but anti-Maastricht—so I am not part of any conspiracy to set up a huge federal state of the regions. I want devolution, or home rule, for its own sake. I was worrying about home rule for Scotland long before Europe ever crossed my mind.
I think that home rule would be a better form of government for Scotland, and the same goes for England. That would stop people like me interfering in English affairs, which would be a very good thing. The legislation is not part of a conspiracy; it is a genuine attempt to find a better form of government that is equipped to meet the demands of the 21st century and the new global economy.
I am probably more of a moderniser on this issue than any of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I include some of the ultra-modernisers on the Front Bench, who would be appalled at how modernising I am: they would think that I needed to be pulled back and made more old Labour by arguing for the sovereignty of Westminster. I shall not do it, because I see that we have to change and adapt to the modern conditions of the modern world. I do not believe that we are doing it fast enough.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: The intervention of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) prompts the thought that many Conservative Members of Parliament view the United Kingdom as a country when in fact it is a multinational state. The relationships within it are inevitably being changed by the Bill. That is welcome to me. Those changes will continue, particularly with the creation of a Northern Ireland assembly, in addition to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly.

Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right. No one can stand up in the House and say that this is the end of constitutional change in this country. That cannot happen.
In any case, I have never understood those who cling to stability and argue that the proposal for a Scottish Parliament is unstable and will lead to further change. So what? Why are people frightened of change? What is wrong with the people in this House? Are we so clinging to our power and privileges that we are determined that not one bit will slip through the doors to some other institution? Are we so undemocratic that we think that the democratic debate, involving 60 million people in these islands, can be resolved only by a handful of people who meet here every week? Of course it cannot. We must look to the future. We must welcome instability as something that is good and will turn Britain into a much more modern and successful economy.
Finally, I shall deal with the amendment, to which I have not yet spoken. I share the attitude of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan to the appalling language in which amendment No. 2 is phrased. If the Tories were looking for a new name, as they are in Scotland, they could call themselves the British supremacists on the basis of the amendment. It says:
the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters and things in Scotland.


That is an appalling amendment to put to the people who live in Scotland. I cannot understand it. Where were the Tories on 11 September? The position in the amendment was basically the position of the Tory party in the no, no campaign for the referendum. The Tories were hammered. They were wiped out by the Scottish people. That position was rejected on 11 September. To come back to Parliament several months later and put the same position again seems suicidal on the part of the official Opposition.

Mr. Galloway: It was a knock-out.

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend mentions that a knock-out blow was landed on the Tories. They are almost like a boxer who has been knocked out and three minutes later staggers to his feet saying, "You never laid a glove on me," and wants to carry on fighting. The Tories seem unaware that their position has absolutely failed in Scotland and that it is useless to put it forward any further.
I am not happy with clause 27(7). I should be a liar if I said that I were. I recognise that it is a minimalist statement of Westminster sovereignty and that it is there to satisfy the dinosaurs in this place who want to cling to Westminster sovereignty, especially those on the official Opposition Benches. I recognise the subsection as a genuine attempt on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends to try to keep together, at least within the Labour party, very different points of view on sovereignty. It is a noble attempt to do so, but it is not convincing. We all know that the powers referred to in subsection (7) can never be implemented in practice.
If any Westminster Parliament sought to override laws passed by a Scottish Parliament, it would simply bring closer the day when Scotland decided to break away from the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not say that as an idle threat. I was a councillor before I became a Member of Parliament. We all know that elected members at whatever level of government go native and become great supporters of the institution to which they belong. Perhaps I am not a good example of that in this place, but most people go that way. Members elected to a Scottish Parliament will be determined to fight for the rights and privileges of a Scottish Parliament. If Westminster ever dared to override legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament for Scotland on issues devolved to it, that would literally be the end of the United Kingdom.
As far as I can see, clause 27(7) is redundant and could never be put into practice. It is a fig leaf put in to cover the fiction that the Westminster Parliament retains sovereignty when the reality is that that sovereignty has long ago gone to Europe and is now going back to Scotland. People will have to learn to share it in the future.

Mr. Godman: May I say to my hon. Friend, with perhaps absurd naivety, that I cannot imagine for a moment that this Parliament will seek to impose an Act of Parliament on the Scots in the teeth of the opposition of Members of the Scottish Parliament, and against the opposition of civil society in Scotland.

Mr. McAllion: Absolutely. It is lunacy to suggest that clause 27(7) could be given effect. If anyone from any

party in this Chamber believes that this Parliament could override a Scottish Parliament on devolved legislation, he is not living in the real world, and he should come into the real world.
My hon. Friends who have taken part in the debate rightly drew the distinction between the theoretical clinging on to Westminster sovereignty and the practical reality that sovereignty rests with the people and that the people will decide ultimately. That is an important fact which people have to understand.
Any form of government can survive only with the consent of the people. That is the only guarantee that matters. We cannot insert into the Bill provisions that prevent the people from having their way. At the end of the day, the Scottish people, the English people and the Welsh people will have their way. I believe that the Labour party is much closer to what they are thinking than the dinosaurs on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Tim Collins: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) made an interesting speech, and one which was amusing and witty in parts. He would not expect me to agree with most of it, and I do not. I was amused by his reference to what a time traveller from 1707 would make of Parliament today, saying that there had been no changes. Although I would never wish to create any difficulties between the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench colleagues or his Prime Minister, he may have temporarily forgotten that he is living in cool Britannia and month nine of year zero of the new Labour revolution. He may have been slightly off message.
I was also somewhat amused by some of the other exchanges in the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) sought to give the Conservative party tips on how to pick up support and win votes. He also told us that we were living in prehistoric times. I am sure that he will forgive me if 1 point out that, given his stance on various issues over the years, he probably knows a little more about the time of the dinosaurs than some of us on the Tory Benches.
Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) told us that he wished to advance a middle way on issues of Scottish devolution—an interesting description of the Scottish National party position. He described the wording of amendment No. 2 as "offensive". I am sure that he will have found offensive—indeed, he said so at the time—the words used by the Prime Minister before the general election, when he said that, under his proposals, "Sovereignty will remain with me as an English Member of Parliament."

Mr. Salmond: Yes, I did. What is perhaps more interesting to the hon. Gentleman is that the Conservative party in Scotland attacked those words as arrogant.

Mr. Collins: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point that I am trying to advance is that, if that wording is offensive, it is the message that the Prime Minister put before the people. It is the mandate that he sought throughout the United Kingdom. It is the basis on which he secured election to this Parliament and became the head of the Government of the United Kingdom. It is the basis, furthermore, of the propositions put before the Scottish people in the referendum in September.
Therefore, the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) merely seeks to encapsulate clearly in the Bill words equivalent to the position that the Prime Minister advanced, for which he sought the democratic endorsement of the Scottish people and the people of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State will no doubt make his own remarks about the amendment in due course, but he intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes. From the tone of his intervention, I gathered that he intended to argue not that he disagreed with the implications of the amendment, but that he disliked its wording and thought that it was somewhat otiose, and possibly even repetitive of other provisions in the Bill.
If that is his argument—he is nodding now—I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if the worst thing about the amendment is that it is repetitious, there are many repetitious provisions in statute in both England and Scotland; whereas the merit of the amendment is that it clearly establishes the exact basis of this act of devolution. The amendment makes it clear that the Bill is not intended to undermine the overriding sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
The amendment is important also because it provides an element of stability. Interventions from the Government Benches have shown a willingness to use the Bill to provide, in the oft-used phrase, a slithery slope; a constant process for accelerating devolution—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Slippery".] It can be slippery and slithery, as I am sure the Secretary of State would concede.
Conservative Members are advancing the proposition that, whatever the final settlement—the word "settlement" is often used; a settlement implies a degree of stability and predictability—if there is to be stability and predictability on the basis that was put before the Scottish people and the electorate of the United Kingdom, it should be reflected in clear and unambiguous language in the Bill in the terms of the amendment, making it clear that this Parliament remains sovereign in Scotland as in all other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The amendment is almost an exact repetition of section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which the Government are about to barter away in exchange for some nebulous and undefined amendment of articles 2 and 3 in the Irish constitution.
In support of what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, the Prime Minister confirmed to me two weeks ago that he intended to put into this legislation for Scotland something similar to section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act, which is in accordance with the amendment. The Government are prepared to abandon sovereignty in Northern Ireland by removing section 75, but to strengthen it in Scotland by putting exactly the same proposition into the Bill.

Mr. Collins: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. In the light of the Prime Minister's assurance, I assume that the Secretary of State will be explaining why he is now going to accept the

amendment. That seems to be the force of what the Prime Minister has told the hon. Gentleman. I am most grateful for that helpful intervention.

Mr. Godman: rose—

Mr. Collins: This one may be a little less helpful.

Mr. Godman: I disagree utterly with what has just been said: in no way can the excision of articles 2 and 3 of the constitution of Ireland be regarded as a nebulous measure.

Mr. Collins: I suspect that we had better return to the provisions relating to the government of Scotland rather than the government of Ireland—or Northern Ireland, I should say, which is not part of the Republic of Ireland, and I hope never will be.
Clause 27(7) has been subject to much debate. I am particularly concerned about its implications for what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) described as the third anchor which he believed was of critical importance in maintaining Scotland's place in the United Kingdom, and that is the place of the monarchy.
Some Labour Members talked earlier of the role of the Crown in Parliament. I hope that, if necessary, the Secretary of State will put me right, but some of the provisions here give rise to concern. Clause 27(2) makes it clear:
Proposed Acts of the Scottish Parliament shall be known as Bills; and a Bill shall become an Act … when it has … received Royal Assent.
Subsection (3) makes it clear that a Bill receives Royal Assent under the provisions of the Scottish seal. That is fine.
But schedule 5 (1) makes it clear what matters are generally reserved. It becomes clear that the constitution, including the Crown, are reserved matters. Paragraph 5 says:
Paragraph 1 does not reserve … the use of the Scottish Seal.
It is clear that the Scottish Parliament will have control in advising Her Majesty on the use of the Scottish seal, and therefore, no doubt, Ministers in the first Scottish Administration will advise Her Majesty on the process of giving Royal Assent to Acts of the Scottish Parliament.
If that is the case, Her Majesty will be obliged to follow the advice of her Ministers, as she is in relation to the United Kingdom, its dominions and Crown dependencies outside the territories of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State shakes his head; I shall be happy to give way, or for him to correct me later.
Clause 28(1) says:
An Act of the Scottish Parliament is not law so far as any provision of the Act is outside the legislative competence of the Parliament.
I do not understand why that provision refers to an Act of Parliament, which has therefore been passed by the Parliament and given Royal Assent, and does not say that a Bill before the Parliament cannot become an Act, and therefore cannot go to Her Majesty the Queen to seek Royal Assent, until it has been proved that Parliament has clear legislative competence to act in that way.
To put it at its simplest, I am concerned that Her Majesty the Queen may receive contradictory advice from two separate Administrations within the United Kingdom.
On the one hand, the Scottish Parliament, particularly if it had a hefty SNP representation, might pass legislation which would be sent to the Queen to which, under the Bill, she would be obliged to give Royal Assent and it would become an Act of the Scottish Parliament. On the other hand, clause 28 says that an Act shall not have the effect of law if it is beyond the competence of the Parliament.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman should table amendments at the relevant point in the Bill's Committee stage. This has nothing to do with the amendments that we are discussing. But, in any event, as he knows, if there is a question about vires, which is the only matter that could arise, there are challenge procedures which would take us to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That would be a rare event, but the procedure is available.
Obviously, if that challenge is lodged timeously and is going to the Privy Council, there is no question of Royal Assent being given. If there is no such challenge, the Queen will take the advice offered to her, and give Royal Assent. The hon. Gentleman may be worried about that, but there has been much consultation, as he would imagine, with the proper authorities in this area, and they are not.

Mr. Collins: The reason, I imagine, that 1 was not ruled out of order before is that I was trying to make the case for amendment No. 2 because it states that, throughout the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom Parliament has total and unequivocal sovereignty, and therefore it is the Queen in this Parliament who has the supreme legislative authority in Scotland. That is why I was trying to point out that the lack of such a clear statement in the Bill could give rise to considerable constitutional difficulties.

Mr. John Hayes: I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that the key word, which he rightly emphasises, is "supremacy". Every right-thinking writer on the subject of sovereignty must understand the issue of supremacy—the supreme ability to exercise legitimate power. The amendment deals with supremacy, and that is why the Government are so frightened of it and are opposing it.

Mr. Collins: I entirely agree—my hon. Friend makes the point well.

Mr. Dalyell: Will the hon. Gentleman be a messenger to the Government requesting their best advice on when we should raise the question of the conflicting sources of advice? The Scottish First Minister is clearly to advise the Queen, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom can advise the Queen, and their advice may not be the same. Will the Secretary of State, with all his support, advise us when we can table probing amendments to explore that real problem?

Mr. Collins: It is a genuine pleasure to take part in debates on this vital constitutional question in the hon. Gentleman's presence. From outside these walls, I followed his contributions on these matters for many years.
I agree that one of the many difficulties with the proposals is that there is an assumption that there will always be amity, co-operation and an identity of view between the different institutions. That may sometimes occur, but, it is not inevitable. Difficulties may arise, not least because of the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes, as a result of the Head of State of the United Kingdom attracting different advice from Ministers in different parts of the United Kingdom, and genuinely being unsure which she should follow. I agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) about the potential danger.
That is why I return to the central argument in favour of the amendment, which is that it mirrors provisions that are already on the statute book in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Those provisions have not been amended by successive Conservative and Labour Governments since that time, but have been regarded as a clear and highly acceptable statement of the position regarding Northern Ireland. They offer a model for the people of Scotland which would give them exactly what the Prime Minister told them they would receive if they voted yes in the September 1997 referendum, which was no threat to their continued participation in the United Kingdom and the governance of that United Kingdom by the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend develops an extremely well-observed argument for the importance of the amendment in respect of stability. Does he agree that one of the central elements is the stability of the Queen in Parliament as the sovereign power? The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway) drew parallels with other European states, and the latter mentioned Catalonia, but he forgot that one reason why, on the death of Franco, the Spanish people chose to bring back their royal family was to get the stability and the guarantee of democracy that a monarchy could provide. The Spanish returned to the democratic stability of the monarch in Parliament—or, in the case of the Spanish, in the Cortes.

6 pm

Mr. Collins: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend—once again, he has provided support for my argument. The amendment clearly would improve the Bill.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow set out a powerful case why it may not be possible for any form of legislation along the lines of the Bill to be compatible with the continuation of the United Kingdom. That case has been argued by many senior and distinguished people, and it is one for which I have some sympathy, but we must continue to try to improve the legislation. The amendment would indisputably improve the legislation; that is why I support it.

Mr. Godman: I shall be brief, mainly because I am tempted to say that the debate on the amendment is a sheer waste of time. Let us look at its wording:
the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall remain unaffected and undiminished".
What many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches choose to ignore is that we live in a multinational state that is undergoing profound constitutional change. The relationships between the


nations and the Province of Northern Ireland are undergoing change. We have a Scottish Parliament on the parliamentary stocks and a Welsh assembly about to be created. The hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney) is engaged in negotiations that may or could lead—

Mr. Robert McCartney: indicated dissent.

Mr. Godman: I see the hon. Gentleman denying all responsibility, but I was about to say that those negotiations may or could lead to the creation of a similar body in Northern Ireland. The fact of the changes in the relationships between these nations and Northern Ireland must inevitably place some constraints on the supreme authority of Parliament.
A modus vivendi will be established between Edinburgh and London, and there will be few references to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It is in the interests of the different Parliaments and assemblies to arrive at amicable and mutually acceptable arrangements. In the circumstances of profound constitutional change, one cannot hope to maintain the supreme authority of Parliament and assert that it should "remain unaffected and undiminished". That is an absurd objective vis-a-vis the changes we are experiencing.

Mr. Gorrie: I should like to restate our position on the question of sovereignty, which obviously hangs up several hon. Members.
As we see it, the people—whether the Scottish people, the English people, or any other people—have sovereignty; they may then choose to give bits of it, in trust, to various organisations. In the case of the United Kingdom, we have given some sovereignty in trust to the institutions of Europe, which now run various matters on our behalf.
At present, the Westminster Parliament enjoys the sovereignty entrusted to it by the Scottish people, but the Scottish people wish to change that system, and they are taking some of areas of responsibility back to a Scottish Parliament. Therefore, responsibility for and sovereignty over Scottish affairs will have been delegated by the Scottish people to three separate organisations, which do not overlap—they are separate.

Mr. Hayes: If the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, as he surely will, that the definition of sovereignty implies supremacy, how is that supremacy divisible in the way he describes?

Mr. Gorrie: I do not subscribe to that concept—I am not a supremacy freak, although clearly the House contains a large number. I am interested in the popular sovereignty, which is given in trust to various different bodies. The Scottish Parliament will have powers over education, health and so on; this Parliament will have powers over benefits and similar matters; it will not be possible for the Scottish Parliament to interfere with benefits. The division is quite clear.
The matter is well set out in the declaration of Arbroath, in which the Scottish people said that they fully supported Robert the Bruce—he was a great man, who had driven out Edward II and freed the country—but, if Robert the Bruce went wrong and sold out to the English

Government, they would remove him and set up their own Government. The power was handed in trust to the king, and it could be taken back. That is a classical statement. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State wish to intervene?

Mr. Dewar: I was sure that the community of the realm and Robert the Bruce would appear, and I am delighted that they have. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to read Professor Barrow on the subject. He points out that almost everyone who signed the declaration of Arbroath had either lost his lands or been executed within a few years, and that they were a nasty collection of disloyal robber barons.

Mr. Gorrie: I have recently been reading Professor Barrow on precisely this subject. The fact is that most of the best political statements have been made by complete villains—[Laughter.] It is quite true. Wilkes and Paine were in many ways men of low moral character, but they made important political statements. The declaration of Arbroath was bang on the nail, and the fact that some crooked barons signed it is neither here nor there.

Mr. Salmond: In support of the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that Magna Carta, which is often quoted in the House, was hardly the work of socially minded and peaceful people. In defence of my old tutor, Geoffrey Barrow, I should say that his entire argument about the term "community of the realm" was that, at that period in Scotland's history, the concept went beyond the king, beyond the nobles and beyond the barons. It encompassed something far larger than that, which was that in which it was important.

Mr. Gorrie: My next point is that we feel that the answer to some of the concerns, which are obviously sincerely felt by some hon. Members, about what happens in respect of the management of England, is that the English need to exert their popular sovereignty and decide how the affairs of England should be run. That should be the next stage after this.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) cast doubt on the idea that the Scottish Parliament would refrain from interfering in areas that were not its province, and suggested that candidates would promise things that they could not deliver.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow has great experience here. I have had quite long experience in the much more humble role of councillor, where it is clear what one can and cannot do. If an election candidate goes about promising to deliver all sorts of things, which his opponents can say that he has no power to deliver, that candidate will be gutted; he will not stand a chance. If Scottish politicians in the Scottish Parliament start promising things outwith that Parliament's powers of delivery, they will not survive. The fear, therefore, is not relevant or legitimate.
The question whether the Scottish Parliament may invade the prerogatives of Westminster is well covered in several parts of the Bill that set out all sorts of locks and balances to prevent the Scottish Parliament from doing precisely that. There are all sorts of rules relating to judicial powers, Privy Councils and Officers. The Bill clearly sets out mechanisms to prevent the Scottish Parliament from taking action that it should not.
Amendment No. 23, supported by the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists, seeks to clarify the vexed clause 27. It clearly states that the Westminster Parliament can make rules affecting Scotland in non-devolved, reserved, matters. It seems sensible to clarify that. I urge the Secretary of State to look again at clause 27(7), and make it absolutely clear. During today's debate, it has become apparent that the subject is not clear in some people's minds.

Mr. Grieve: I have made a number of interventions, so I shall try to be brief, but there are a couple of points that can usefully be made.
There seems to be a misunderstanding about the position of Conservative Members. We accept that there has been a referendum. As I have said before to the Secretary of State, that is why we wish to co-operate in trying to create a sensible piece of legislation that can be passed by the House and that will allow the new Union that will result from the changes to work, which is essential. It may not work—the worst fears of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) may be correct—but at least it is worth a try.
The foundation for the legislation must be the foundation of legal principle, which is the only way to have sensible devolution and a sensible Parliament in Scotland. It has been suggested that the great theme of popular sovereignty belongs to Scotland alone, not here. I can assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) that there have been plenty of occasions in English history when people have made assertions about popular sovereignty—usually to do something unpleasant.
I seem to remember that a Bishop of London once preached before the House of Lords and the House of Commons on the deposition of King Edward II, on the theme of "vox populi, vox dei", declaring the king deposed because the voice of the people was the voice of God. I do not think that I shall go that far. Popular sovereignty is a meaningless phrase. Everyone may assert sovereignty; ultimately it is a willingness to accept that there are structures, such as entities called countries, which are the foundations on which legal government can be conducted.
Let us consider the reality of what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with the Bill. It is clear that, if the Bill is to work, the Westminster Parliament's involvement in spheres that have been devolved to Edinburgh should, as far as is humanly possible, be avoided, but there may be instances where it will happen.
We need look no further than clause 54 to see that that is precisely what may happen: the Secretary of State might direct the Scottish Parliament to introduce legislation on a devolved matter to make Scotland conform with our international obligations. The idea that clause 27 might never be invoked and that the part of the Bill dealing with parliamentary supremacy at Westminster is irrelevant or merely a piece of decoration, is—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion)—simply not realistic. If one reads the whole Bill, one realises that there are occasions when that might happen.

Mr. McAllion: I recognise that there might be occasions when this Parliament thinks that it can order the

Scottish Parliament to carry out actions, particularly on devolved matters. But, in reality, if it ever tried to do that, it would break asunder the United Kingdom. It is not a practical, but a theoretical, power, which could never be used without threatening the Union.

Mr. Grieve: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is worrying. I realise that a number of hon. Members who have spoken have taken the same attitude as the hon. Member for Dundee, East, but his view should be particularly worrying to the Secretary of State because he is nominally a supporter of the Government. If that is the hon. Gentleman's attitude, he is in error. If one considers the legislation, it becomes apparent that there may be occasions when that may happen. I hope that it will not, but it may. The purpose of the amendment—

Mr. Galloway: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that the Scottish Parliament would require this place to bring it into line with international obligations? Why does he not think that a grown-up Parliament would be more than ready to undertake its international obligations without having to be led by the hand by the rather dubious prospect of a parliamentary majority here?

Mr. Grieve: I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman is right. I fully agree with him in that I should have thought that in most cases—I cannot predict the future—that is precisely what would happen.
We are having to put together a piece of legislation that will have the force of law to deal with contingencies. If the Secretary of State did not think that this contingency had to be addressed, he would not have included clause 54. The fact that it is there means that we have to consider it. It has been clearly been considered in clause 27(7). It is significant that a number of hon. Members, including Liberal Democrat Members, do not want it to appear in the Bill. It would drive a cart and horses through the principle of the residual power of the Foreign Secretary to give such a direction or for the House to do something if a direction is not observed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has tabled his amendment; it is a clear restatement of the position.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: In dealing with the contingency, the hon. Gentleman is seeking a stifling monopoly of political power. Amendment No. 2 refers to
supreme authority … over all persons, matters and things in Scotland.
The UK Parliament would have absolute control of our people, including what they do. The last person who advocated that was King Edward I, which means that the Conservatives are 700 years out of date. The rest of us want to get on and run the 21st century.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman may dislike it, but that is the reality of the way in which the Bill has been presented to us. All that my right hon. Friend's amendment does is to restate in plain language the truth about the legislation.
As it is unlikely that the amendment will be accepted, it is effectively a probing amendment, but its use as a probing amendment has been extremely revealing and, I have to say to the Secretary of State, rather depressing.


[Interruption.] It is not a game. We shall have to live with the legislation in the House and, unless it works and people are prepared to accept the framework, it will, as the hon. Member for Dundee, East suggests, fall apart.

Mr. Dewar: I entirely accept that it is legitimate to table probing amendments; I have done so many thousands of times in the past 20 years, and I am not ashamed of it. But what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not compatible with the statement of the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that, if I do not accept the amendment, my words will turn to dust in my throat. I was wondering which side the hon. Gentleman was on.

Mr. Grieve: I should have thought that it was perfectly compatible. Given the majority that the Labour party commands in this House, the Secretary of State can accept or reject an amendment and the Government are likely to carry the day in the Division Lobby. That does not alter the need for debating the issue, which, I submit, is an important one. I hope very much that the Bill, as drafted by the Secretary of State, works; but I observe that, judging by the various views that have been expressed in this debate, many hon. Members' opinions of what devolved government should be about are wholly at variance with what the legislation offers.

Mr. Hayes: There seems to be an essential difference between the contributions that we have heard from the two sides of the Committee: Conservative Members place a special and particular value on parliamentary democracy and on the important ideas, traditions and history that are its foundations, an attitude that stood in contrast in the debate to the rather flippant and casual disregard—to be generous, perhaps justified by ignorance rather than caused by malice—that Labour Members have for our sacred parliamentary democracy and its traditions.
That disregard was no better illustrated than by the hon. Member for Dundee, West—

Mr. McAllion: Dundee, East.

Mr. Hayes: I am sorry; Dundee, East. I am not intimately familiar with Dundee, but I of course apologise. I meant the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). [Interruption.] Well, at least I always eat the marmalade.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East said that he disagreed with what I believe he described as the theoretical nature of democratic accountability provided by Parliament, but later recommended the theoretical nature of the principle of consent. Consent is a refined and sophisticated political notion. It is no more or less tangible than democratic accountability. Worse still, the hon. Gentleman then spoke about his support for the notion of subsidiarity. Writers, thinkers and political theorists greater than him or me have found it difficult to define the nature of subsidiarity, but subsidiarity is definitely a less tangible political notion than that of the democratic accountability provided by Parliament.
I suggest to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that, in a more cogent explanation of sovereignty, he would have to alight on the issue of supremacy, which I raised in an earlier intervention. I suggest that because, although legal sovereignty may be provided by international legal

recognition of the independence of a state, political sovereignty—as has been recognised by Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dryden, Shelley and writers throughout the ages—inevitably has much to do with the principle of supremacy: in this case that means the supremacy of this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge that vital fact.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) lapsed further. His grasp of the matter was even more limited. He spoke about sovereignty as though it could be dished out—as though it could be collected and divided up. He spoke as though sovereignty, instead of resting in an institution, instead of forming part of an evolutionary development, instead of being part of a coherent tradition, was something that was divvied up among people—extraordinary.

Mr. Wallace: On reflection, my view is accurate. Is not what happened in 1707 that sovereignty was transferred from the Scottish Parliament to this Parliament, and that the people's sovereignty, which had been entrusted in the Parliament of Scotland, was transferred to the Parliament at Westminster? So sovereignty really can be transferred and divvied up. It is not something that just exists in one place for ever.

Mr. Hayes: I suggest that legitimate political sovereignty is the right to govern—and the ability to govern—free from external influence. It implies a degree of supremacy. Of course it can exist in more than one place, and of course this Parliament could take a conscious decision, in the way that the hon. and learned Gentleman suggests, to give up its sovereignty, but it could not simultaneously retain its political integrity as the supreme body ruling over the United Kingdom.
Of course no set of political conditions is fixed in stone, but if this Parliament decided to give up its sovereignty, it would lose supremacy—its supreme right to govern these islands. The hon. and learned Gentleman may wish that to happen, but his friends—

Mr. Galloway: Is not that precisely what happened when we joined the European Community; when we passed the Single European Act; when we passed the Maastricht treaty into law? Would it not be a further step along that road if we were to enter economic and monetary union? Surely the hon. Gentleman's arguments are nonsense.

Mr. Hayes: I will not allow the hon. Gentleman to seduce me into giving—

Mr. Galloway: No chance.

Mr. Hayes: Well, he might be enthusiastic about the prospect, but I shall not allow him to seduce me into giving a discourse on the nature of sovereignty in relation to Europe, not only because it would take up more time than I have, but because you, Mr. Lord, would call me to order. However, I will say that of course that is a legitimate consideration in relation to Europe, and many Conservative Members fully understand the risk to sovereignty that is posed by those dark forces. That is precisely why the Conservative party stands for the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, free from that type of external interference.
Given that, I believe, we all accept that sovereignty is ultimately a matter of supremacy—that is what the amendments say, and the point has been raised previously by many Opposition Members—the Government must face up to the issue of how to present that to the Scottish people.
Of course there is nothing implicitly wrong with dividing political power. Political power can be divided under a unitary constitution. The supremacy of this Parliament is not necessarily affected by the delegation of its political powers; powers are divided between local and central Government. For many years, the exercise of political powers has been divided in this way among many institutions as part of our democratic political system, yet Parliament remains supreme.
However, once one divides sovereignty in the way that has been suggested from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from the Labour Benches, one must face up to the threat that that poses to the integrity of this House of Commons, and the people of the United Kingdom through this House of Commons.
John Stuart Mill said—[Interruption.] Well, we have had Robert the Bruce; 1 thought that we would have John Stuart Mill. No good debate is complete without both. John Stuart Mill said in 1865 that the optimum form of government is one
in which the sovereignty, or the supreme controlling power in the last resort, is vested in the entire aggregate of the community
and the aggregation of the community of the United Kingdom is this place. The people of the United Kingdom speak through their elected Parliament, and one casts that aside, surely, at the peril of the people. It should not be done callously and lightly. It should not be done without due consideration of the long-term effect.
The importance of the amendments before us is not about the division of political power. One could vote for the amendments and still be in favour of a form of devolution. One could vote for the amendments and still be in favour of a different settlement in terms of the divisions of political authority.

Sir Robert Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hayes: I am just reaching a conclusion, so I will not. The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) spoke volumes from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench earlier.
One cannot support the Government in the Division, however, if one believes in the supremacy of the people of the United Kingdom, expressed through this Parliament. If the Conservative party is the only party that believes in that, it is a sorry day for this kingdom and for this Parliament, but if that is the case, we shall proudly defend those appropriate, ancient and precious democratic traditions.

Mr. Home Robertson: The good people of South Holland and The Deepings might be a little puzzled by the notion that this Parliament is sovereign, rather than the people. I never thought that I would take part in a chicken-and-egg debate in the House. Which came first,

the people or the Parliament? Clearly, the people; the Parliament is the creature of the people, and that is as it should be.
The amendment is mischievous. It seeks to retain in this Parliament something that neither the Government nor the people intend to be retained. Clause 27(7) provides for this House to legislate on the reserved subjects. That is entirely proper and in accordance with the decision taken by the people in the referendum.

Mr. Ancram: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Home Robertson: No, I have undertaken to be brief, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State must wind up shortly.
Having listened to Opposition Members, I am concerned that there may be attempts by another Government in this place to encroach on the devolved powers. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity to say more about the case for finding ways of entrenching the decision taken by the people of Scotland at the referendum of 11 September.
6.30 pm
We have had a long debate about the settled will of the people of Scotland, which reached a clear conclusion in the referendum: 74.29 per cent. of our people, in a high turnout on a rainy day, voted for the Scottish Parliament to be established in accordance with the White Paper put to the people by my right hon. Friend, with a clear list of what was to be devolved and what was not to be devolved.
My anxiety is that, at some time in the future, some current Opposition Members might seek to interfere with that clear decision of the Scottish people. That is one of the reasons why I tabled amendment No. 91, which was not selected. It would amend the long title of the Bill to refer to the fact that the Bill is being put through Parliament with the specific consent of the people of Scotland in the referendum.
I recognise that entrenchment in the sense of one Parliament seeking to bind its successor is not feasible, but if we are to use referendums in our constitutional arrangements, they should not be regarded simply as one-off opinion polls. If we ask the people to make fundamental decisions about the constitution of this country, we should ensure that that decision is understood as a popular decision. It should not be tampered with without the consent of those self-same people. I put it to my right hon. Friend that there is a case for referring in the Bill to the fact that it is enacted on the strength of a popular decision in a referendum. That should apply also to any future legislation that is enacted following a referendum.

Mr. Dewar: I begin by congratulating everyone on a varied and interesting debate. That is a form of words, as the House will recognise: a verbal screen—not scream—for some highly idiosyncratic points.
I was delighted that MacCorrnick v. Lord Advocate cropped up again. We can always rely on the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). It is an old friend revisited. Lord Cooper would never have imagined, I hope, the deification of his views on the matter, which have become a mark of the Liberal Democrat party.
I also thought that we would revisit the Wars of the Roses, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Gorrie) did not disappoint me. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wars of independence."] I am sorry. Wars of independence.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Where was the right hon. Gentleman educated?

Mr. Dewar: Not in Perth, Australia; that is certainly true, and that is why the hon. Lady is so well based in Scottish history. The wars of independence were splendid, stirring times, but as a quarry for political theory for the 21st century, I find them a little less than persuasive.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to another much-loved favourite, the Church of Scotland Act 1921. I was thinking of rehearsing some of the parallels from the Welsh disestablishment Act, as Mr. Gladstone was particularly fond of it and thought that it was one of the central issues of constitutional reform, but I decided against that, just as I declined to take up the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to enter into the Czech and Slovak question, beguiling though it was.
I began to pale, if not swoon away, when the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) began to speak about Shelley and Dryden.
The one piece of information that I got from the debate was details of the proposed funeral arrangements for my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway). I hope that I am there to see the box being carried out. [Interruption.] I say that because I believe that I will live for ever.
It has been an important debate, which raised some fundamental issues. I do not shy away from the concept of power to the people, in the people and with the people. It is one of the oldest, and probably one of the most legitimate, political slogans of all time. However, we must have some sense of perspective.
I do not panic before the slogan "Power to the people", unlike the hon. Member for Solihull, who said that, if we started following popular democracy, there would be no end to it. I understand why a Conservative politician should take that view. Popular democracy of any kind is not likely to commend itself, but we must be more dispassionate about such matters. I remember the hon. Gentleman's father—

Mr. Grieve: My father was the Member of Parliament for Solihull.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is the hon. Member for somewhere that I know not of. That is my fault.
On the substance of the matter, I am interested in trying to build a practical system that will work to the advantage of this House, the new Scottish Parliament which we hope to create, and the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. I have been sparring for close on 40 years on definitions of sovereignty. It is perhaps time to call a halt, and to examine practical systems of government and how we can make them real.
There is an important distinction, which has become a little blurred. I agree entirely about popular sovereignty, in the sense that if, for example, we want to move away

from devolution settlements towards an independent settlement for Scotland, and if we want to move back into a more fully incorporating Union, that is a matter for the people.
The people can change the constitution. It may not be widely understood that, while one is in a constitutional set-up, one is in a sense changing it, but one cannot walk out on it, so to speak. One can move to total independence, but while one remains within the United Kingdom, and more important, while one remains represented in the United Kingdom Parliament, which is one of the marks of this settlement, one must live with the realities of that system and the Parliament. I commend that point to some of my hon. Friends.
I recognise that the sovereignty of Parliament is not necessarily a sympathetic concept, but even those who believe in popular sovereignty in the most simplistic sense and reject the distinction that I have tried to draw to the attention of the Committee, and hon. Members on both sides of the argument who have prayed in aid the White Paper, should remember what it said.
Paragraph 4.2 stated:
Under the Government's proposals, the UK Parliament will devolve wide ranging legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament. Scotland will of course remain an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Queen will continue to be Head of State of the United Kingdom. The UK Parliament is and will remain sovereign in all matters: but as part of the Government's resolve to modernise the British constitution Westminster will be choosing to exercise that sovereignty by devolving legislative responsibilities to a Scottish Parliament".
That is what Scotland voted for. It is a succinct statement of the kernel of the case for devolution within the United Kingdom. If we believe in popular sovereignty, we directly endorsed that concept in that passage only a few weeks ago.
I put it to the Committee in all seriousness that what we have in the Bill, whether individuals like it or not, is the legislative enactment of paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper. That is something which we must hold on to as a foundation for our continuing arguments and discussions during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Salmond: Was the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, right to tell the House:
Within the areas of devolved responsibility, laws passed by the Scottish Parliament are not open to cancellation."?—[Official Report, 13 January 1998; Vol. 304, c.155.]

Mr. Dewar: On occasion, we all talk in shorthand, and that was a practical description of what I think we all want to see.
It is clear that what we have is an important division of responsibility, one that is logical, strong and internally sound. It says that we are to have a level playing field for economic matters, for macro-economics, fiscal matters, defence and foreign affairs. These will all remain on a United Kingdom basis, but there are areas in which the Parliament—I hope that it is this Parliament—will be persuaded that it should pass authority to a Scottish body that is directly elected, reflecting Scottish opinion.
The sovereignty of Parliament, which is explicitly recognised in the White Paper, will continue in that there is a possibility, in theory, of the United Kingdom Parliament legislating across those areas, but it is not one


which we anticipate or expect. One of my difficulties with some of the amendments is that they seem to be trying to raise that possibility as a practical part of the daily passage of politics and business in this country. That is how they will be interpreted. I object to them, in the same way that I would object to other amendments that have been tabled that seem to represent a sleight of hand, trying to suggest to people in Scotland that something cannot happen when in fact it can, and that the power remains, even though, practically, it will not.

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Dewar: Let me just finish this point, as it is important. I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene, as I am never blate about doing that.
The hon. Member who does not represent Solihull, which perhaps does not help the Committee very much, but whose father did; that is a clue—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Beaconsfield."[—so that is why he survived. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made a persuasive argument and an important point. He drew attention to clause 54, which is a specific and tightly drawn safety net in case a Scottish Parliament—I hope that the situation will never arise—mistakenly insisted on policies that ran counter to international obligations and put the United Kingdom Government at risk.
We have had to deal with that specific exception. We do not expect the general power, the concept of sovereignty, to be exercised. Only in specific circumstances, which we have tried to define in the Bill—and very unusual they would be—are we trying to build in such an override power.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Salmond: rose—

Mr. Dewar: I give way first to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for the spirit in which he is addressing the debate. The clause to which he referred, which deals with the resolution of a conflict of authority, makes it clear that the supreme authority lies with this Parliament.
Amendment No. 2 talks about supreme authority. The White Paper talks about ultimate authority or ultimate sovereignty. How does the right hon. Gentleman define the difference between the two? If there is no difference, why does he have a problem with the amendment?

Mr. Dewar: I think that some of the difficulties may arise in the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, because it is a double-edged weapon. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no difference between the text and what he is trying to put in, why does he say that this is such an important lead amendment? It is because there is a hidden agenda behind it, and I am not prepared to go down that road.
6.45 pm
We on the Government Benches do not drift along on a rosy haze of expecting happy harmony on all occasions and on all fronts. When the hon. Gentleman is a great man and sits behind the Dispatch Box—in 2500, or whenever it may be—there may well be friction, but the whole point is that we have built in sensible provision, of which clause 54 is an example. We have built in the fast-track procedure for disputes over vires, leading only rarely, we hope, to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. We are constantly trying to put in these safeguards, hoping that their presence will seldom be a practical matter, and that we will always be able, as we do in the United Kingdom, to work together for common aims and objectives and with widely shared common interests.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Secretary of State now saying quite the opposite to what the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office, told us two weeks ago: that a future Westminster Parliament could, if it so wished, introduce a poll tax in Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is not a silly man, although he may be mistaken and misguided. He campaigned to endorse the sovereignty of Parliament when he campaigned for the White Paper. That is, perhaps, an unfair point, but he understands what I am saying. He took it warts and all. 1 accept that he would have written a different White Paper. I accept that he will argue for further change, as he is entitled to do, but it is no good his coming forward and saying to me, "I want to change the White Paper now by means of one amendment in Committee."
The White Paper embodies popular democracy. It was endorsed. The hon. Member is right to point out that parliamentary sovereignty still exists, but we have built the whole system on the basis—the Conservative party now accepts this—that, in areas such as health, education and housing, and on a multiplicity of other domestic matters, we have the right to make the law in a body that reflects Scottish opinion. That is seen by us, at least, as a way to improve significantly the situation of Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: Look: silly, misguided, mistaken we may be, but could we have a direct answer to the question: under the present proposals, could Westminster introduce a poll tax into Scotland?

Mr. Dewar: That would assume that Westminster was tearing up the entire settlement. That seems to me a totally otiose statement. To do so would run contrary to the whole basis on which this has been put together. I know that my hon. Friend thinks that it is a trick question. He knows the answer, and he must have read the Bill. He is a man of considerable experience, enormous tenacity and considerable ability, but he is asking a question that is not essential to this particular debate.

Mr. Wallace: Let us get away from the things that would tear up the settlement, such as Westminster introducing a poll tax. Can the Secretary of State envisage a circumstance in which a clause in a private Member's Bill, because of the way in which it was drafted, would impact on Scotland on what everyone assumed was a devolved matter? What assurance can he give us that such


confusion, which could affect citizens in their everyday lives, will not happen? Inadvertently or otherwise, a law might be passed in this House that could affect Scotland in what is accepted to be a devolved matter.

Mr. Dewar: That will obviously be watched carefully by hon. Members on both sides of the House. There are certain problems with limitations in private Members' Bills—for example, expenditure. If something impinged on the powers that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, or at least are not reserved to the Westminster Parliament, to be precise, that is something which I would expect the House to avoid.
There will be a little flexibility. Later, we shall debate powers that blur the distinction to the advantage of the Scottish Parliament, allowing it to legislate on devolved matters, but having a clear impact on reserved matters. To the purist, that may seem to be an impossibility and a contradiction, but we are making allowance for it in the interests of the good government of the country.
There are impracticalities in this group of amendments, which we have to guard against. The sovereignty of Parliament has been used properly in the past to argue that no Parliament can bind its successors. That is seen in some way as an odd situation, but in practical terms it is inevitable.
It we have a devolved Parliament in Edinburgh it will not be able to bind its successors. If we have an independent Parliament in Edinburgh, which regards the rest of the United Kingdom as just another friendly country, that Parliament will not be able to bind its successors, for the simple reason that the law would be ossified and caught in a time warp, which would be ludicrous. We must all live with the idea of the sovereignty of a legislative body and its inability to bind its successors. If one accepts that concept, one must live with it as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, as those who represent other parts of the United Kingdom in this Parliament live with it.
I know that the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) wishes to say a word or two on behalf of the Conservative party, so I shall conclude by saying that this provision is the right balance. In answer to the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, it is not a matter of undermining Westminster's sovereignty. A great deal of influence will be left with the Westminster Parliament, but its real influence will be that we shall remain Members of it and will still look to it for extremely powerful areas of policy. I hope that many of my hon. Friends will be here for a long time to guard Scotland's interests, whether on taxation, industrial matters, macro-economics, foreign affairs or defence.
It is a case not of stripping Westminster's sovereignty but of Westminster using its judgment to pass legislation sensibly. We have made an honest attempt to translate the White Paper into statute, which is what we voted for. It would be extremely wise of the Committee to accept that argument and leave matters at peace.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) has frequently said that to make the system work it is necessary to have a Scottish Parliament. Although he may be a reluctant convert, I know that it is a genuine conversion. If he lives up to those aspirations, he will understand why we prefer the present draft, which is a

balance between the flak that is flying from both sides of the argument and what is right for Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Salmond: I rise to make two points. First, as the Secretary of State knows, I campaigned for the White Paper during the referendum campaign because of the right of the people of Scotland as a sovereign body to opt for independence whenever they chose. The Secretary of State has admitted that openly and freely, and has held that view for many years. I welcome the fact that that right has not been seriously disputed in this debate. However, there was a clear understanding during the campaign—I remember the occasions on which it was outlined—

Mr. Dalyell: indicated assent.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) is nodding. It was clearly stated that matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament would be left to the people of Scotland, including matters such as the poll tax.

Mr. Dewar: indicated dissent.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State shakes his head, but that is what the House was told two weeks ago by the Minister for Education and Industry, Scottish Office. He said that private legislation could not overturn Acts of the Scottish Parliament and that devolved matters could not be cancelled by the Westminster Parliament.
The Secretary of State can quote from the White Paper and we can all quote the Prime Minister recognising the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Indeed, we can quote them until we are blue in the face, but two weeks ago people had the clear understanding that some matters would be devolved and other matters reserved, because that was articulated by the Minister of State.

Mr. Dewar: The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill, which is skilful. Ultimately, the White Paper is absolutely clear. That is what we fought the referendum campaign on together, and neither of us misunderstood that position.

Mr. Salmond: The Secretary of State skirted round the answer to the question asked by me and by the hon. Member for Linlithgow. The answer to the question whether the Westminster Parliament could impose a poll tax on the Scottish people, regardless of the fact that it would be a devolved matter, is yes. That answer would not be widely acceptable in Scotland.

Mr. Dalyell: The difficulty is that the whole referendum was sold on the basis that the Parliament would protect the Scottish people from the ravages of Margaret Thatcher's poll tax. That was the public's understanding.

Mr. Salmond: For the second time this evening—probably for the second time in my life—I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
I wish to make one more point before I allow the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to sum up on behalf of the Conservative party—a courtesy which Conservative


Members have not always extended to me under similar circumstances—[Interruption.] If Conservative Members want to continue the debate, I am prepared to continue speaking until 7 pm.
I have been doing some research and have found that, on 22 November 1977, the then Scotland Bill contained a clause on the supreme authority of the Westminster Parliament. The clause was deleted in Committee and the Government of the day did not try to reintroduce it. Among those who voted to delete the clause were Lady Thatcher, Lord Tebbit and other Conservative Members, who argued that the clause was meaningless and declaratory. They said that the form of words had no meaning because it was political reality which dictated events. When he sums up, I hope that the hon. Member for Woodspring will explain why the Conservative party wants to go further tonight than even Lady Thatcher was prepared to go in 1977.

Dr. Fox: It is a pity that we are running so short of time, because many points have been made which I should have liked to take up, especially the last point raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). I shall deal with that later in the Committee stage.
I am also sorry that we did not have more time to hear from the Secretary of State, because he laid out the Government's Unionist credentials and I very much welcomed that. He gave a clear interpretation of what will remain sovereign and how the White Paper translates into the Bill.
We have had an interesting debate on sovereignty, not least because we have had so many different definitions of what sovereignty means. We wanted to make our intentions clear at the outset. Amendment No. 2 is not a probing amendment and we shall push it to a Division. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) talked about making the Bill work by making it clear at the outset, and about making the new Union survive and work well. We shall work with the Government so long as we feel that they are working in the correct direction.
I am not a lawyer—a fact for which I thank God every morning—but a member of a profession that helps lawyers earn their money: a doctor. I do not claim to be an academic, nor do I wish to entertain an academic debate, but the point has been made and I should clarify it now: political sovereignty ultimately rests with the people, but it is vested in and exercised by Parliament on their behalf with their consent. If the Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish people want to leave the Union, they clearly have the right to do so. However, in the referendum, people voted for devolution within the Union, as they vote to remain within the Union in successive general elections by voting for Unionist parties, as the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, whatever the blueprint of those parties for internal governmental construction.
A great deal of the debate has been about the technical definitions of sovereignty and its practical effect. In answer to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), in theory sovereignty is not diminished if it is delegated. Devolution delegates powers where federalism divides powers. I agree with the vast majority of what he said.

The Committee's failure to agree what sovereignty means shows the inherent instability of what we may create if we do not iron out those problems at the outset of the Committee stage.
The amendment seeks to reinforce our belief that this Parliament should remain absolutely sovereign as long as the Union remains. We want to put it at the start of the Bill, and to clarify the legislative limitations of the Scottish Parliament in amendment No. 198, to show not only that Westminster is legislatively sovereign but that the Scottish Parliament cannot amend or repeal Westminster legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) made that clear.
I was astonished by the intervention of the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who is no longer in his seat. He said that the amendment was taken largely from the Government of Ireland Act 1920, section 75 of which implied that there were no matters for which the Northern Ireland Parliament and Government were solely responsible. Admittedly, the powers were not used until 1960, but it was accepted that those powers were valid as long as Northern Ireland was part of the Union. We are being challenged to accept that proposition for Scotland. That wonderful intervention by the hon. and learned Member for North Down, who said that the Prime Minister promised him that such a proposition would be in the Scotland Bill, was extremely interesting.
I do not have time to deal with all the points that were raised. The hon. Member for Linlithgow warned that giving a Scottish Parliament commitments without legislative responsibility or power would be dangerous. Commitments given by those who do not want the Parliament to work would be the most dangerous.
The hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland said that candidates should be given notice of what powers the Parliament will have, and he hoped that we would be grown up and use them sensibly. The intervention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan showed exactly what attitude the Scottish nationalists will take into a Scottish Parliament: they want to destroy it, and that is extremely dangerous.
Clause 27 is about the ability to make laws for Scotland. The Secretary of State made it clear that it is not just about reserved powers. If Scotland remains part of the Union, the Westminster Parliament must be the sovereign decision-making body on all issues. That is reasonable: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that it is offensive.
We need clarification at the outset. We must accentuate that provision by putting it at the beginning of the Bill. We support the basic ethos of clause 27, but, until it is clarified, the Government's Unionist credentials will not be as apparent as they must be if they are to satisfy us, and if they are to put clear water between them and the nationalists, who have campaigned as the Trojan horse.
It being Seven o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution this day, put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 127, Noes 341.

Division No. 142]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lansley, Andrew


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Letwin, Oliver


Arbuthnot, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Brady, Graham
MacKay, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Mates, Michael


Cash, William
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fox, Dr Liam
Shepherd, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony



Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whittingdale, John


Hunter, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bemard
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. James Cran and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Oliver Heald: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 1, leave out lines 11 to 14.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 48, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'and regions'.

Amendment No. 49, in page 1, line 18, leave out
'and the number of regional members'.

Amendment No. 63, in schedule 1, page 53, leave out lines 10 to 14.

Amendment No. 241, in schedule 1, page 53, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (3).

Amendment No. 64, in schedule 1, page 53, leave out lines 23 to 27.

Amendment No. 65, in schedule 1, page 53, leave out lines 31 to 35.

Amendment No. 66, in schedule 1, page 54, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 on page 55.

Amendment No. 233, in schedule 1, page 55, leave out lines 1 to 22 and insert—
'4. The number of seats for a region shall be that number that is produced when the number of electors in each region is divided by the sum produced by dividing the total electorate in Scotland by 128.
5. The number of regional seats for a region shall be the number of seats allocated to each region by rule 4 above less the number of constituency seats in that region.'.

Amendment No. 50, in clause 4, page 3, line 6, leave out 'or regional members'.

Amendment No. 51, in clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 9 to 37.

No. 120, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, leave out 'or individual candidates'.

Amendment No. 237, in clause 4, page 3, line 25, at end insert—
'(e) who does not pay income tax at the rate applicable in Scotland at the time of the general election.'.

Amendment No. 121, in clause 4, page 3, leave out lines 26 to 34.

Amendment No. 238, in clause 4, page 3, line 34, at end add—
'(e) who does not pay income tax at the rate applicable in Scotland at the time of the general election.'.

Amendment No. 105, in clause 5, page 3, line 43, after '(a)', insert
'a candidate who is a member of'.

Amendment No. 123, in clause 5, page 4, leave out line 1.

Amendment No. 41, in clause 5, page 4, line 4, at end add—
'(4) The names of the candidates on each regional list shall appear on the ballot paper.
(5) Electors may select an order of preference for the candidates on the regional lists by placing an appropriate number opposite the name of each candidate, with number 1 indicating the first choice and number 2 indicating the second choice, and so on.'.

Clause 5 stand part.

Clause 6 stand part.

Amendment No. 124, in clause 7, page 4, line 22, leave out 'or individual candidate'.

Amendment No. 125, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out 'or individual candidate'.

Amendment No. 126, in clause 7, page 4, leave out lines 26 and 27.

Amendment No. 129, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out
'the order in which they appear in the list'

and insert
'a manner to be agreed between the parties'.

Amendment No. 106, in clause 7, page 4, line 29, leave out from 'order' to 'except' in line 30 and insert
'of the number of votes cast for the candidates, with the candidate with the highest being elected first and so on'.

Clause 7 stand part.

Amendment No. 128, in clause 9, page 5, line 16, leave out from 'If' to second 'the'.

Amendment No. 107, in clause 9, page 5, line 28, leave out from 'them' to end of line 29 and insert
'received the greater number of votes.'.

Clause 9 stand part.

Amendment No. 56, in clause 10, page 6, line 2, leave out from 'member' to end of line 3.

Amendment No. 57, in clause 11, page 6, leave out lines 39 to 41.

Amendment No. 58, in clause 16, page 8, line 2, leave out 'or region'.

Amendment No. 59, in clause 16, page 8, line 4, leave out 'or region'.

Amendment No. 60, in clause 16, page 8, line 7, leave out 'or region'.

Amendment No. 61, in clause 16, page 8, line 13, leave out 'or region'.

Amendment No. 62, in clause 17, page 8, line 38, leave out 'or region'.

Mr. Heald: The amendments raise important issues relating to representation. Amendment Nos. 47, 48 and 49 would remove all reference in clause 1 to the additional Member system. Amendment No. 63 would

delete all reference in schedule 1 to the eight regions, and to the delineation as the eight Euro-constituencies. Amendment Nos. 64, 65 and 66 would remove all reference to the Boundary Commission for Scotland recommending altering the regions, and all reference to the number of regional Members. It would remove any question of the commission producing a report, and all the paraphernalia of inspections, inquiries, reports and giving notice. Amendment Nos. 50 and 51 and 56 to 62 would remove all other references in the Bill to regions and that form of representation.
I suppose that the first question that I must answer is—

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Why.

Mr. Heald: The Scottish nationalists got there pretty quickly. [Interruption.] I apologise; it was a Liberal Democrat.
The provisions that we hope to amend will create a novel and, I would argue, dangerous situation in regard to representation. First, they create two classes of Member of the Scottish Parliament—those with constituencies, and those without. Secondly, regional Members will be less individually accountable, because they will not have constituents to answer to. Thirdly, there will be differences in the work loads of Members. Fourthly, the public will inevitably be confused about whom they should approach on any particular issue. Finally, it will be difficult for regional Members covering a huge area to have any effective communication with their constituents.
Those arguments have long been held by me, but they are also held by others—notably the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), who now argues for the same propositions in the Government of Wales Bill. He has said:
The AMS system favoured by most PR advocates in the Labour Party would mean two classes of MP, some constituency-based, the others constituency free-loaders chosen from lists and without any constituency responsibilities.
However, we are concerned not just with the difficulty of having regional and constituency Members. The Bill goes further. Amendment Nos. 120 and 121 to clause 4, amendment No. 123 to clause 5 and amendment Nos. 124 to 128 are designed to remove the possibility of individuals standing in their own right as regional Members. The problems of having two classes of MSP will be made that much worse if there are three categories-constituency Members, party list Members and individually directly elected regional Members.
What will those Members for the regions be like? First, they will be able to claim personal mandates throughout a region. Secondly, they will be able to meddle in the affairs of any constituency within the region. Thirdly, they will be able to present themselves as a superior form of MSP, almost as senators, because they will cover a larger area and have individual mandates. We shall end up with a system under which MSPs are not equal—and they should be. They should have similar duties and similar representative mandates.

Sir Robert Smith: Where in his list does the hon. Gentleman have an amendment to introduce another form of proportional voting? It would help the Committee if he could tell us about that.

Mr. Heald: It will come as no surprise to the hon. Gentleman to hear that that is the last amendment that we


would want to introduce, because we do not think that PR provides fair voting. It provides fixed votes, and later in my speech I shall deal with that.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not wish the Conservative party to have any representation in the new Scottish Parliament—a wish, I certainly think, that we might well share? Does he not realise that the people of Scotland voted for this package in a referendum and that they clearly understood that this form of PR was on offer? They clearly voted for it.

Mr. Heald: Those who voted in the referendum knew that the Bill would be scrutinised. We have a duty to do that; otherwise, we would not be dealing with the matter in the way that was expected when the referendum took place. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The duty of the Conservative party in Scotland is to fight its case hard and to win seats directly. We admit that we took a terrible drubbing in the general election, but we think that we can come back in Scotland by winning seats in our own right in constituencies. That is the basis of our plea.

Mr. Dalyell: Pursuant to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), may I say that very little was clearly understood by the people of Scotland in that referendum? The great misunderstanding that has now come to light is that, if anything was clear, it was that the Bill would protect them from the poll tax.

Mr. Heald: As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. The proposals were sold on the basis that they would protect people from the poll tax. However, we must accept the referendum result. We want to improve the Bill so that the Scottish Parliament will not be a forum for dissension, which the Scottish nationalists could use to drive such a wedge between people in the Union that Scotland might leave it and we could end up with a separatist solution. That would be totally against the interests of Scotland and England and of the other countries in the Union.
An agreement, a marriage, has worked well for many years. The Scottish people have decided to move in the direction of devolution, but that does not mean that there cannot be a Union and that we cannot make it work. We must ensure that the Scottish Parliament is not used by the Scottish nationalists to further their aims. They pretend to be friends of the Parliament, but they see it as a platform from which they will try to destroy the Union. That must be resisted.

Mr. McAllion: I hope that the hon. Gentleman plans to use the Scottish Parliament to pursue the aims of the Conservative party. With that in mind, whom did he consult in the Scottish Conservative party before he tabled amendments that would remove the proportional element of the electoral system?

Mr. Heald: We undertook wide consultations.

Hon. Members: Name them.

Mr. Wallace: I shall save the hon. Gentleman some embarrassment. He has said, as his hon. Friends regularly

say, that he accepts the outcome of the referendum and the wish of the Scottish people. Does he accept that in many parts of Scotland, and especially in rural areas such as the borders, Dumfries and Galloway, the highlands and islands and Grampian, one of the key features in getting a yes vote was the proportional system of elections? That is because that system ensures that the Parliament will not be dominated by one party from one part of Scotland. Why does he wish to pluck that proportional system from the Bill?

Mr. Heald: When I was campaigning in Roxburgh and Berwickshire, nobody mentioned that to me.
Amendment Nos. 237 and 238, tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson), are designed to ensure that a candidate for the Parliament is an income tax payer at the Scottish rate. I have much sympathy for that argument. It has been said for years that there should be no taxation without representation, and it is appropriate to say that one should not get the chance to be a representative unless one pays the tax. The hon. Gentleman may be concerned that some of his hon. Friends who may be in contention for seats in the Parliament might not meet the requirement at the moment. It is part of the Conservative theme that the requirements for becoming a Scottish Member of Parliament should be the same for everybody and that every Member should have the same standing. That is why we welcome those two amendments.
Clauses 5, 6 and 7 provide for the poll for regional Members and for calculating the regional figures and the allocation of seats. Clause 6(2) provides that the divisor shall be one plus the number of constituency Members elected in the region. I am about to ask the Secretary of State a question, so perhaps he would care to listen. Clause 6(2) is designed to achieve proportionality by reflecting the fact that constituency Members have been elected for one party despite substantial votes for others.
We share the concern that one party might seek to maximise its position by setting up as or using the identity of another. I shall give an example. At one time, the Liberal Democrats formed not one party but two. When I stood against the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), he was described as the Liberal SDP Focus Team Alliance candidate. At that time there were two parties—the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party. If all the constituency seats in the Scottish arrangements were contested by Liberals and none was contested by the SDP, and if all the regional seats were contested by the SDP and none by the Liberals, it would be possible to avoid the mechanism of proportionality in the Bill. I am coming to what is perhaps the more dangerous prospect, because I do not think that the Liberal Democrats will do well.
If Labour fielded constituency candidates and allowed the Co-operative party to field regional candidates, there could be a similar effect. Can the Minister assure the Committee that that is not the plan? [Interruption.] It would have some advantages for Labour party supporters, but it would defeat the whole principle of proportionality that is contained in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 105 to 107, which were tabled by the Liberal Democrats, amendment No. 41 and our amendment No. 129 relate to the issue of the open list. They raise the question whether it is right to have a closed


list that is chosen by the political parties, because huge political patronage could be conferred by placing a candidate as No. 1 on his party's list. The amendments suggest that voters should have the right to decide, and that there should be an open list.
The Conservative party does not support proportional representation. However, we take the view that, if the additional Member system is to be pursued in the Bill and is to become law, it would be right for the Government to consider the open list as their preference. It would at least ensure that Members of the Scottish Parliament had a mandate as individuals.

Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that the open list, more than any other issue in the debate, poses a danger to the Conservative party? Unless the Conservative party is entirely united and solely either Europhile or Europhobe, there will effectively be two Conservative parties—one Europhile, one Europhobe—competing in Scotland. An open list would simply invite individuals on the list to campaign not against the other parties, but against each other. Not only would that divide parties, but it would most likely confuse the entire electorate.

Mr. Heald: Although I was kind about the hon. Gentleman's amendments, he is living in the past. The terms that he used—Europhile and Europhobe—went out at least six months ago. [Interruption.] The party is now united behind the policy of the Leader of the Opposition.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) makes an interesting and important point in amendment No. 41. He states that there should be an open list, and that there should be a list of all candidates at the regional level. One of the difficulties with his amendment is that, if one had 10 parties fielding up to 12 candidates each, which is possible, it might be difficult to produce a satisfactory ballot paper. Simply producing for electors a list of 120 or more individuals might be difficult. He should perhaps consider whether, rather than having a ballot paper with a list, the solution might be the one suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) from his experience in Northern Ireland: a list in the polling booth from which voters make their own list.
As I said, proportional representation is not about fair votes but about fixed votes. It is about leading a Government to a situation in which everything must be agreed in a deal. It means that one can have a situation, as in Germany, in which one party—the smaller party—is always in power. The Liberal Democrats' sister party in Germany is always in power, although it receives the support of less than 7 per cent. of voters.
One can have a situation with proportional representation in which the Government change at the whim of the smaller party in a coalition; in which every by-election runs the risk of the Government changing; and in which anyone who crosses the Floor can change the Government's complexion. Later groups of amendments will deal with that point.

Sir Robert Smith: I cannot believe that I am hearing from a Conservative Member how proportional representation will go down in the north-east of Scotland.
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman got as far as the borders, but if he had come to the north-east of Scotland, he would have realised that a crucial aspect of the Bill—making the current situation different from that in 1978—is that at its heart is a fair proportional voting system that will protect the regions and avoid domination. It is amazing that he should attempt to strike into my constituents in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine the fear that the majority in Scotland will be eternally dominated by the minority. Does he realise that, although the Labour party has never had a majority of the vote in Scotland, it now holds 56 of 76 seats? Labour would ride roughshod over any other political opinion in Scotland.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Some of the interventions today have been far too long.

Mr. Heald: It is important, above all, that the regions should have a fair voice in the Scottish Parliament—amendment No. 205 directly answers that point. Proportional representation is not the answer. If the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine could explain to me how proportional representation will help his constituents, I should be very grateful.

Sir Robert Smith: rose—

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman can do that in his own speech.
Proportional representation does not lead to a transparent system in which one party can stand in an election, make its case to the people, win the election and then pursue its programme. One ends up with anything but fair government, and everything is decided in smoke-filled rooms. That cannot be right, and it cannot be the best form of democracy. Moreover, where proportional representation has been tried, it has failed.

Mr. John Swinney: The hon. Gentleman is afraid that, with coalition politics and proportional representation, decisions will be made in smoke-filled rooms. What about the issues that were settled in smoke-filled rooms in the past 20 years, when the Conservatives were in power with the support of 30 per cent. of the electorate, after a one-day vote held every five years?

Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman cannot seriously argue that, in the past few years, the Conservative party did not make its case clear to the people in its election manifestos; it certainly did. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] It is all very well for him, a Scottish nationalist, to make the point that he does. However, the effect of having a Parliament with proportional representation, in which the major parties can be held over a barrel by the smaller ones, will be to ensure that the Scottish National party will use it to drive a wedge between Scotland and England and between the other countries in the Union. The effect will be bad for the Union and bad for Scotland.
Opposition Members remain convinced that first past the post, with constituency-based representation, provides the fairest form of government. It is the fairest form


of government for the UK and it is the fairest form of government for Scotland. I ask the Committee to support this group of amendments.

Mr. Davidson: I shall speak first to amendment Nos 241 and 233. If we are to have a system that has two types of Members, and if there is to be an element of proportionality, we shall have to try to ensure that the system is as fair as possible. Basing the system on European constituencies is not fair, because those constituencies contain considerably different numbers of electors.
Library figures show that—although they are the most extreme cases—the European constituency in central Scotland has 552,230 electors, whereas the Highlands and Islands constituency has 327,310 electors. Each of those will receive seven top-up seats, effectively assigning 78,000 voters to each Member of central Scotland's top-up list and 46,000 voters to each Member of the Highlands and Islands top-up list. Such a discrepancy is not fair.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he has picked the two extreme examples, and that every seat other than the Highlands and Islands has over 500,000 electors? It seems reasonable that the one seat in Scotland that covers such a vast area should be given proportionately slightly more, because of the huge distances that must be covered. Giving that slight extra edge to the Highlands and Islands does not really disfranchise constituents anywhere else in Scotland.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman has picked up some of the points that I had planned on dealing with later. Although he is right to say that I picked the extremes, the difference is not marginal. A representative in the central Scotland European constituency will represent 70 per cent. more electors than a representative from the highlands and islands. Such a large difference is beyond the bounds of what is fair and reasonable.
In amendment No. 233, I propose a different and much fairer system that would entail changes for some of the other constituencies. The central Scotland seat would receive one extra Member, which would give it 10 constituency Members plus eight regional Members. Glasgow—my own area—would keep the same number, which shows that I am not proposing my amendments for parochial reasons. Highlands and Islands would lose three Members, Lothians would gain one, Scotland North East would gain one, and Scotland South and Strathclyde West would remain the same.
Before any hon. Member leaps in to suggest that I am arguing from a party political point of view, I should say that that is not so. Judging by figures from the recent general election—I accept that it is difficult to make the assumption that everyone would vote in exactly the same way, but there is no other basis on which we can move forward—the Liberal Democrats would gain a seat in Scotland Mid and Fife, the Labour party would gain the seat in Lothians and the SNP would gain the seat in Scotland North East. Losers in Highlands and Islands would be Labour, the Conservatives and the SNP. The net result would be the transfer of a seat from the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats.
That would be a fairer way of electing people. If we want to command the support of people in Scotland, and if all Scots are to feel that they are equally represented in the Scottish Parliament, there must be less discrepancy in constituency sizes.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman therefore support the desire to increase the number of electors in his constituency, which is a city constituency, so that, rather than having 20 per cent. fewer electors than my constituency, which is a large rural constituency, there might be some equality?

Mr. Davidson: Constituency sizes must have certain parameters. There has to be a degree of variation. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman laughs. I shall come to the question of Orkney and Shetland. Although there are some extremes, there must be a desire for constituency variations within certain parameters. A difference of 70 per cent. from top to bottom is too much.
The system could be improved to ensure that it is fairer to those involved. On the basis of results at the recent general election, and given the system proposed, the party receiving the largest number of votes in four of the eight Euro-constituencies would not gain a single seat under the top-up mechanism. That effectively means that everybody in that circumstance who votes in the second ballot is wasting their vote because they will not elect another representative.
Let us consider the Euro-constituency of Strathclyde West, where Labour got more than 50 per cent. of the vote. Under the top-up mechanism, the Labour party would not be given another seat. Therefore, more than 50 per cent. of the electorate there would be casting a wasted vote. That cannot be correct under any system.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the system is proposed because the party—in this case, the Labour party—is amply compensated by far more than its fair share of seats in first-past-the-post elections? Therefore, voters who voted Labour have Labour Members of Parliament in abundance.

Mr. Davidson: What you are failing to recognise is that many people will vote for the individual whom they believe will best serve their area. [Interruption.] I accept the tribute to myself. You will remember that I knocked out Jim Sillars in the 1992 general election—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I well remember who the hon. Member knocked out, but he should not draw me into the argument.

Mr. Davidson: As I remember, I was supported in knocking out Jim Sillars by many members of the Scottish National party.
People will vote for an individual representative, and then there will be a separate ballot for regional lists. When more than 50 per cent. of votes cast produce nothing at all, it can only encourage the sort of games described by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), where more than one party runs under the same general banner.
I remember the leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), saying on television that


proportional representation would mean that parties had to learn new tricks. That suggests the sort of approach described by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire, where the Labour party stands and then the Co-operative party stands for the top-up section. That is what we were invited to consider. Such a new trick arises only because votes in the second ballot would be cancelled by the first ballot.

Mr. Wallace: I did not have that kind of new trick in mind. I had in mind a place like Glasgow, where, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the Labour party won every seat under the first-past-the-post system. It would be a completely wasted vote to vote Labour on the regional list, so we shall invite people to vote Liberal Democrat. In fact, I am sure that all our candidates will put his quote on their election addresses, which will say, "It is a wasted vote to vote Labour in the second ballot in Glasgow in the next Scottish parliamentary elections."

Mr. Davidson: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, because that was not what I said. In fact, on figures for the recent election, we would win another seat in Glasgow. I was referring to the Strathclyde West seat.

Mr. Wallace: indicated dissent.

Mr. Davidson: I was referring to a different constituency altogether. In four of the eight Euro-seats, the parties that gain the most votes will get no other seats in the top-up mechanism, and more than 500,000 votes from a total of 2.5 million cast would be wasted. Labour would lose out in three of those seats. In Highlands and Islands, the Liberal Democrats would lose out, and people would say that there was no point voting Liberal Democrat in the list section.
Particularly in Highlands and Islands, votes are very much cast on the personalities of the candidates. Indeed, in the borders, where I originate, the seat in Galashiels and the surrounding area was held by the Liberal Democrats largely on the basis of personalities—the Tories who were put up were so appalling. [Laughter.] The decision was nothing to do with the merits of the good Member who was elected. [Interruption.] Hon. Members should not distract me.
Where people vote for individuals, they have a right to have their vote in the top-up section seriously considered. That would not happen in Highlands and Islands, and the result would not necessarily be an accurate reflection of what people wanted. My amendments would mean that fewer votes would be wasted; there would be less opportunity for chicanery.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is contradicting himself. In one part of his argument, he is talking about people voting for individual candidates in the firstpast-the-post list, but the rest of his argument depends on people transferring their votes to exactly the same party in the regional list system. His argument does not follow. Surely people who voted for the hon. Gentleman as an individual may vote for another party in the list system. His analysis falls.

Mr. Davidson: One would be aware who is likely to win under the first-past-the-post system. Calculations will

have been done; polls will have predicted the carry over. More than 500,000 people out of a total of just over 2.5 million will realise before they cast their vote in the second ballot that they are effectively disfranchised. That is an unnecessarily large proportion.
Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 refer to what I call the Sean Connery clause. It seems necessary to stipulate that anybody who wishes to stand as a candidate should be a taxpayer in some shape or form in this country before standing for election. Similarly, those who want to involve themselves in the affairs of this country should already have some involvement in it. If any hon. Member tabled constructive amendments to ensure that those who are unemployed are also included, I should be quite happy.

Mr. Swinney: rose—

Mr. Davidson: I look forward to hearing whether the hon. Gentleman and the SNP believe that tax dodgers—people who have stated that they have gone abroad to avoid paying tax in this country—should be able to participate in our elections as candidates.

Mr. Swinney: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman for an intervention, I should like to make a comment about interventions. The Committee has agreed to a tight timetable, taking in many amendments, clauses and schedules. Interventions and long speeches will deny hon. Members an opportunity to debate fully the other matters before us this evening. I am in the hands of the Committee.

Mr. Swinney: Thank you, Mr. Martin. I shall be brief.
The hon. Gentleman added almost as an afterthought the complication of many low-paid individuals who do not pay taxes being excluded from standing for the Scottish Parliament as a result of his amendment. Has he calculated the number of people who might be affected? The figure may be more than 1.5 million.

Mr. Davidson: Like others, I table probing amendments to clarify the situation. I look forward to hearing whether the Scottish National party believes that people who live abroad to avoid paying taxes in this country should be able to participate fully in democratic elections as candidates, as funders or by doing voice-overs for television broadcasts. It is not appropriate that people who are not willing to pay taxes here should be allowed to participate fully.

Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman asks a serious question. He might like to ask the Chancellor the same question. I remember watching beautiful shots of the Chancellor getting off the "Maid of the Forth" boat at South Queensferry during the referendum campaign with the gentleman at whom the hon. Gentleman is having a go.

Mr. Davidson: Was that a yes or a no? I am unclear whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that tax dodgers should be able to participate in the election or that they should not. His silence speaks for itself.
The proportional representation system being proposed is flawed. I have brought a book from the Library that could guide party leaders on how to select candidates for the top-up section. It is called, "Clone: The Road to Dolly and The Path Ahead". There is a grave danger of the top-up system being used to introduce people who are so on message as to be unbelievable. The Liberal Democrats probably have the greatest difficulty. I understand that Daddy Steel, Mummy Steel and Baby Steel are all coming forward for the elections, as well as the Bell twins. The Liberal Democrats may not have enough members to put up one in every seat. I had thought that only the Conservatives would experience that problem in Scotland.
We should recognise the major disadvantages of domination by central party leaderships over the selection system. If the pitfalls are avoided, the system could be positive for Scotland, but I hae ma doots.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am happy to adhere to your strictures about short contributions, Mr. Martin, because there is a lot of important stuff for the Committee to move on to. We should spend some time on the system of election, which is an important element in the package. The Liberal Democrats subscribed to the constitutional convention's agreement and do not want to breach it, but it is worth considering whether the system can be improved. This may be the only time when we manage sensible, coherent consideration of the issue. We have a duty to examine a system that we hope will stand the test of time and last for many years.
I have not spent as much time on the fine print of the Bill as some hon. Members have. The Bill sets out the initial system of election. What power does the House—or the Scottish Parliament—have should the system require amendment? If changes are deemed necessary by the new Scottish Executive or by political parties north of the border, how can the system that we are enshrining in the Bill be amended? I understand that that is a reserved power and that amendments can be made only in this Parliament. If that is true, we should recognise that.
Even with all the wisdom that we can bring to bear on the issue, we might still get it wrong. We might have to consider the process of election again in the not-too-distant future. That is also relevant to the parallel Bill for Wales, the new system for the European elections and the London elections.

Mr. Wallace: There is a commission as well.

Mr. Kirkwood: There is also a commission on proportional representation. A good deal of consideration is being given to all those important subjects. Who knows whether we shall get it right first time? It is important to keep our minds open and to revisit the issue. It is worth doing what is necessary to achieve a system that people understand and that is simple and coherent across all the different elections. We may have to return to it in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Ancram: I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. The Conservatives are also concerned that we may be rushing in to a crystallised system of voting before we have worked out all the ramifications. I said in a

debate on the Government of Wales Bill that, while we did not like the additional member system, particularly the top-up list, the open list was more attractive than the closed list. We got nowhere with that suggestion. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has seen amendment No. 129, to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) spoke. We suggest that the way in which the candidates from the list are elected should be agreed between the parties. That would give a little more time—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should be brief.

Mr. Ancram: I shall do my best to be brief. Making this point now may save a little time later on. Would that amendment attract the hon. Gentleman? It would have the merit of giving us more time to get the system right.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am happy to respond to the spirit of that intervention. We have to hasten slowly and ensure that we get it right. The Minister should acknowledge that.
The system is imperfect. In the fulness of time and left to our own devices, we should like a full-blown system of proportional representation with single transferable votes and multi-member constituencies. We could spend a lifetime arguing about the different systems—all with acronyms containing the letter V. That is above my pay grade. However, I know that a pure system of proportional representation has major advantages, one of which is that it forces political parties to agree between elections.
The electorate are disfranchised and disenchanted by our confrontational system of party politics, which is entrenched by first-past-the-post systems. Any system has advantages and disadvantages. We have to be careful even with proportional systems, but it is essential that we should move towards a more consensus-based decision-making and policy-generating system. The system in the Bill is not perfect, but it makes major moves in the right direction. It does not go far enough for us, but it—

Mr. Heald: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

8 pm

Mr. Kirkwood: I must discourage interventions, as I want to be brief.
I have one question for the Government. What do they have against open, as opposed to closed, lists? Contributions from the Scottish National party and the Labour party—certainly the early indications from the official Opposition—suggest that elements from all parties can see the relative merits in the scheme. If we are to have the system proposed by the Bill, the majority of people I have heard outside the House—and the majority of Members who have addressed the Committee tonight—seem to think that an open list is preferable to a closed one, for the perfectly obvious reason that it gives more voter choice and takes control away from the party bureaucracies. It is a quintessentially simple, and essentially democratic, point. I cannot for the life of me see why the Government have set their face against open lists.
I am speaking to amendments Nos. 105 to 107 and I have no intention of pressing those to a Division at the moment. I raise them to put that question squarely to the


Government. The system I propose is used in Finland and Denmark for European elections and is simple to understand. It would have the benefit that it could be used in the Welsh, European and London elections, giving it a degree of coherence that otherwise the system may not have. When the Minister winds up, will he spend a moment looking at the amendments and, in particular, state why he is against the idea of open lists?

Mr. Dennis Canavan: In the interests of brevity, I shall confine most of my remarks to amendment No. 41, standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion). The Bill proposes a system of proportional representation. I strongly support the principle of PR, which will be a much fairer system than the existing first-past-the-post system. It will also help to ensure that the Scottish Parliament is more representative of the people of Scotland as a whole and of the diversity of views which exist among them.
The system proposed in the Bill is a hybrid one which causes concern—concern which I have heard expressed outside and inside the House. The Bill proposes that there should be two categories of Members of the Scottish Parliament: first, those elected directly by constituents, and secondly, those elected through regional party lists. There will be constituency Members and what some people may refer to as party hacks. There is concern that the latter may not be as accountable to the people as the former, and that they may consider themselves accountable to the party machine which selected them rather than to the electorate in their area.

Mr. Heald: What is the hon. Gentleman's view on those individuals who can be elected for a whole region as a candidate on their own? Does not that add a third category, to make the system even more confused?

Mr. Canavan: It does, to some extent, but I would speak out in favour of people being allowed to stand as individual or independent candidates. That is an improvement on the White Paper, which excluded that possibility. That matter was debated in the Scottish Constitutional Convention. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not eligible for the convention, but it is a pity that his party boycotted it. Otherwise, it would have heard some interesting debates about these matters.
I argued within the convention for the single transferable vote system. I accept that I lost the argument within the convention, which looked at various models of PR and eventually decided on the additional list system.
My amendment is not absolutely opposed to the proposals of the convention, but would improve them by giving voters more say. I am proposing that the names of all candidates should appear on the ballot paper, allowing the voters, and not the party machine, to decide who is No. 1, No. 10 or No. seven. All candidates would receive some approval from the electorate, and might therefore feel accountable to the electorate, rather than just to their respective parties.
The only serious objection seems to be on the grounds of practicality—that the lists might be too long and the ballot paper therefore too big and unwieldy, which might cause confusion among the electorate. However, I understand that experience from other countries shows that the electorate can become familiar with long lists and big ballot papers.
If my proposals are considered to create some kind of insurmountable problem, surely—at the very least—there should be a requirement for a list of candidates to be displayed in a prominent place in the polling station, so that people will have an opportunity of knowing exactly who they are voting for. I go along with the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) that the people would be able to choose from the list and mark down the candidates they think should be first, second, third and so on. I should be grateful if the Minister will respond to those points constructively when he winds up.

Sir Teddy Taylor: If the suggestions of the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) were adopted, we would have to issue every voter in Scotland with a computer to deal with the size of the ballot paper. One is hesitant to talk in this debate as a Member who represents an English constituency, but I wish to make one point. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) stated a most sensible idea, which everyone concerned with the devolution proposal should think about.
Pollok is the kind of place where one gets a great deal of wisdom. On Thursday of last week, I had the pleasure of entertaining the son of Alec Garrow, a former Member for Pollok, whom I well remember from sitting in this House as a Scottish Member of Parliament. Although he was not one of the people on the Front Bench—one of those who win medals—whenever he said something, it was sound common sense which made people think twice.
The hon. Member for Pollok said that, if we go for this strange system, it will mean that, in a place such as Glasgow—where things have gone wrong since I left—which has a solid Labour tradition, there will be a multitude of single-issue parties. People will go around saying, "By all means vote Labour, but I hope you will give a vote to the battle against cruelty to animals, the battle against crime or for the disabled." That will create a shambles. If we are to have a Scottish Parliament, which seems almost certain, we do not want it to end up in a horrible mess. The Government should try to convince us of the advantage of having a second category of MSPs.
Because of the virtual destruction of democracy, with so much power being taken away from Parliament, most of us spend our time looking after constituents' interests. Imagine the position of Scottish representatives, representing an area and doing everything in their power to assist its people, working with local authorities on big issues such as whether there should be a housing development or an airport extension, and then finding that these strange list people suddenly descend on the place and take a different view.
How on earth would a Member feel if he was fighting a battle for his constituency and one of these strange people, who do not represent a constituency but claim to speak for an area as part of the region, came along and met all the representatives and delegations and gave a totally different message?
The list candidates would almost certainly be of a different party from those who represent constituents directly. I hope that Ministers appreciate the nightmare that will be created for MSPs. In Britain, there has always been a strong bond between the Member of Parliament and the constituents, who can put Members out if they do


not approve of what they have done. We are creating a situation in which, instead of only one person, a small army of people will be able to claim the right to represent constituents.
It would be an outrage to have one category of MSPs who do all the constituency work and another who do no direct work but who interfere from time to time in what they regard as issues of interest.

Sir Robert Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, under the present system, people in Scotland chose representatives who back the system on offer in the Bill, albeit with minor modifications, and that that system was set out in the White Paper that was the basis of the referendum, which they also accepted?

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is more of an expert in Scotland than I am, but I spoke to many of my friends who voted in the referendum, and I can assure him that people do not consider the cold, logical definitions in a White Paper.
Two of my friends who have always been against devolution decided to vote yes; I asked them why, but I found it difficult to establish their reasons. I think that they had the feeling that there was a need to fly a flag. They certainly did not consider the precise representative system on offer. People do not necessarily vote on the basis of carefully thought out ideas, and nobody voted yes in the referendum because they approved of the list system.
My final point is not a silly one. Do hon. Members honestly think that the system will make the Scottish Parliament a better parliament? If there are all these different groups, the minority parties, which we are not used to having in a democratic parliament, will almost certainly effectively run the show.
If hon. Members have any doubts about that, let them look around the world. The country with the most highly developed system of proportional representation is Israel, which faces many problems. One of its big problems is the electoral system, under which unusual and sometimes extreme parties hold the balance of power, so the larger parties find it extremely difficult to implement the right policies and ensure that the right thing is done.
Why on earth do the Government want to do this? A Scottish Parliament is something entirely new in our system of government, and it will have many problems to face. Why give it this additional problem to cope with? The system will not be a boost. The only argument that I have heard for it so far is that it will somehow help the Conservative party. It certainly will not, and it will not help the people of Scotland if we have a shambles in which there are two categories of Member, each suspicious of the other.
The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) works hard for her constituents. How would she feel if five or six list Members, representing other parties, started to come into her constituency and offer their opinions? The system will create a total shambles.
We wish the Scottish Parliament well, because people voted for it; but let us not make the situation unduly difficult and complicated. I hope that Government Members will listen to the wise words of the hon. Member

for Pollok, and think about the need not to make a complex, difficult problem even more complex and difficult, because the only people who will suffer will be the people of Scotland.
I hope that we will not let Scotland down. We are supposed to consider a huge number of amendments before 10 pm, but it simply cannot be done. If we are letting the people of Scotland down in any way, it is by not giving adequate time for discussion of these important issues.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) made a persuasive case, and should he by any chance press amendment No. 41 to a vote, he will have my support.
I want to ask a question that owes a great deal to discussions with, and reading the writings of, Vernon Bogdanor, professor of government at Oxford university, who takes a very different view of devolution. Coalition government creates special problems for fixed-term parliaments. What happens if there is a change of party alignment? It would be very difficult to bring about a dissolution if there was a stalemate. There would, in fact, be no effective government.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State understandably says that we do not want tactical dissolutions, but, given the problem, is there not an argument for a first-past-the-post system, which can at least punish politicians at the polls, as is the right of an electorate? Is there not a special problem for coalition government in the circumstances of fixed-term parliaments that would be brought about by the Bill?

Mr. Shepherd: I concur with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
Clause 9 concerns the situation when a regional seat becomes vacant, and sets out the conditions whereby the next person on the party's regional list automatically takes up the seat. That is a profoundly objectionable idea. Most of the electors in the large regional constituencies will not know who the individual is—that is a criticism of the list system in general—so there will be no possible connection there.
As became clear with the European Parliamentary Elections Bill, there is genuine concern that, where a party is assured two seats, its two candidates need not even campaign, because they are guaranteed to be returned. The two in the middle of the list would probably struggle around the constituency seeking election, and the rest need not participate in the election at all. Under clause 9, if the Government insist on it, we will accept that an unknown individual, who may not even have canvassed or put his case at an election, will be drafted into a seat automatically.
An important element in the history of elections in this country is that by-elections are often the barometers that register public opinion, which can then influence the nature of government. Indeed, the history of by-elections is often a drumbeat to remind Governments of how unpopular they are.
At the last election, we sought courage and strength that there would be a turning. This is a decisive break with the past. There is no reason why an anonymous candidate,


unknown to the electorate when circumstances have changed, should be drafted into a seat. That is the most undemocratic circumstance that I can think of. I urge the Government carefully to examine that. It is just a matter of reflection. There is no reason why, when a vacancy comes up, there cannot be an election across the region, if that is the form by which the Government wish to hold.
I urge my party, in its considerations on these matters—they have come up in the context of Wales, they will come up in the Committee proceedings on the European Parliamentary Elections Bill—to reflect that the concept of drafting in an unknown man or woman who does not reflect the general will or wishes of the region they are to represent is unacceptable in a democracy.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I begin by congratulating the Government on proposing the electoral system that amendment No. 47 seeks to scrap. It is a good attempt at proportional representation. It will help democracy. It will give some representation to the Conservative party in Scotland. One of the bad effects of the last election was that no Conservative Members were elected there. There is a body of the electorate that wishes to vote Conservative. That does democracy no good whatever, although at the time it seemed to bring great joy to most of the people in Scotland. The introduction of PR may lead on to the tackling of the problem in local government in Scotland and elsewhere.
Other problems have not been tackled by amendments. Contrary to what other hon. Members have said, I do not think that there are enough top-up seats in the system. The limits that we have placed are not guaranteed to ensure proportionality. There will still be a bias towards the party that wins most seats under the first-past-the-post system, which is at present the Labour party. That problem will be exacerbated by a later clause, which will reduce the total number of seats and top-up seats. That will worsen the lack of proportionality. I hope that that can be dealt with later.
I shall briefly touch on some of the other amendments in this group, especially those tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). One would scrap the seven regional top-up seats. As I said earlier, only the highlands and islands regional seat has disproportionate representation; the other regional seats are more or less equal. The hon. Gentleman ignored argument and the creation of fear that was used by those people who seek to use the divide and rule argument to set the Scottish people against each other. That is the main reason why we need to ensure that we give adequate representation to all the geographical regions in Scotland.
It was a powerful argument for a Scottish Parliament in the south of Scotland that I could say, "Look, in the Scottish Parliament, you in the south of Scotland will have some 15 Members out of 129. You will have far more influence in the Scottish Parliament than you will ever have through half a dozen Members down in Westminster."

Mr. Davidson: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that I said that the method I suggested would make no difference whatever to the south of Scotland?

Mr. Morgan: Yes, I took that point, but the argument applies to the highlands and islands. Certainly, in 1979,

it was a weapon used powerfully in the highlands and islands to increase the anti-devolution vote. That vote was much smaller this time, precisely because people were assured that the concentration of power in the central belt would not occur.
Amendments Nos. 237 and 238 would restrict candidates to taxpayers. I understand that artists and actors who have earnings in this country pay tax on them here regardless of whether they are resident in Britain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember that fact.
Before I heard from the hon. Gentleman that the amendments were probing amendments, and knowing that he did not wish to disfranchise about 40 per cent. of his constituents, I speculated that he knew something about the rate at which Labour's new minimum wage would be set. I assumed that it would be set at a rate higher than that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished, but that the amendment would none the less enfranchise everyone in Scotland.
I am puzzled by Tory amendment No. 123 and subsequent amendments. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) spoke about the importance of individuals, but then sought to remove the capability of individuals to stand in the regional list part of the election. It seems to me that any individual who is good enough not only to stand but to get elected from a regional list is a fairly talented individual, and deserves to win his seat.

Mr. Ancram: I am concerned about this point. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Does he think that that individual who wins the regional seat will be superior to any of the other Members of the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. Morgan: I did not imply that he was superior in terms of what he could do in the Parliament. I merely said that he must be an excellent candidate to win such a seat, and that such people should be given the opportunity to do so.
There is no such thing as the perfect electoral system—every system will have anomalies—but we have to recognise that the current system is collapsing under the weight of its inadequacies. It is being scrapped bit by bit throughout these isles. It is being scrapped in Northern Ireland for European and local elections. It is being scrapped for European elections. We ar now scrapping it for elections to the Scottish Parliament. I believe that soon it will be scrapped for elections to Westminster. I shall certainly vote against amendment No. 47.

Mr. Robert Syms: I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). I support the first-past-the-post system because I believe that it is the best system and that it makes Parliament more effective. The advantage is direct accountability to the electorate: individuals represent a geographical area and, if people have problems, they go to their local Member of Parliament.
One of the best things about this place is the convention that Members deal only with their own constituents. That saves a great deal of work. It saves us falling over each other's feet. That will not happen in Scotland. The average elector will have a Member of the European Parliament—although the electoral system for that is to change—a Member of Parliament, a Member of the


Scottish Parliament elected geographically and seven other Members of the Scottish Parliament. People will be falling over each other to take up constituency cases. As different political parties will be represented, there will be great confusion and difficulty. The local government officer, Benefits Agency officer or Child Support Agency officer who deals with an individual will have to deal with half a dozen representatives rather than one.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend says that under the new system Members of Parliament could be falling over each other to help constituents, but surely it could work the other way: they could easily pass the buck.

Mr. Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It could be difficult for a constituent to find out who is dealing with his problem. Some constituents would no doubt write to every representative in turn, until they got the right answer. That is not a recipe for effective administration in Scotland.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who made a point about there being two types of Members of Parliament. People will inevitably go to the geographically elected constituency Member, giving those on the regional list an easier ride. That will cause great difficulty. He is perfectly right when he talks about odds and sods standing for the regional list. One can think of the dog lovers party, the Glasgow Rangers supporters party and the anti-airports party. Various people may pop up, especially individuals with deep pockets who can form political parties with their friends, as we have seen in recent elections.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman not recall that some odd individuals and parties stood at the last election under the first-past-the-post system?

Mr. Syms: That is true, but most had only minority support and so were not elected. For example, the Referendum party failed abysmally to achieve representation. The list system will lead to the representation of odds and sods, causing difficulties and strain within the system.
I agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) had to say about the list system. Under our system, a person is nominated for an election campaign and if he or she does not win, that is it. Under the list system, a person is nominated and stays on the list for four years. That could cause difficulties if individual circumstances changed.
8.30 pm
Overall, the additional member system is bad. In Germany, changes in Government tend to be the result of changes in alliances of political parties rather than changes in what the electorate want, and that is not a good thing.
Under the first-past-the-post system, the members of a party coalesce before the election, agree a platform, stand, and obtain a result, and the majority party is accountable to the people for what it does. If it does not do what it said it would do or is perceived to have done a bad job, it is thrown out.
The best thing about the first-past-the-post system, certainly under our system, is that occasionally furniture vans turn up at No. 10 and there is a change of Government. That is something that the British people can do. The Scottish Parliament may experience the problem of parties changing alliances rather than reflecting changes in the electorate.
Overall, the system proposed is not the best one for Scotland. The first-past-the-post system would be better.

Mr. Dalyell: If parties change alliances, special problems arise from fixed-term Parliaments.

Mr. Syms: I agree. That is a special problem. Elections resolve political problems. They are not always the cause of political problems. Like all democrats, we must face elections, giving the electorate the opportunity to resolve a particular political impasse.

Sir Robert Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to vote against the proposed system because he does not believe that it is in the best interests of the Scottish people. Is he not interested in the fact that the Scottish people have elected people to represent them who favour that system on their behalf and are promoting it? Why does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, since the method applies only to Scotland, he should listen to the Scottish people and allow them to have the electoral system that they want?

Mr. Syms: This is the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is Scotland's Parliament.
We are discussing an important issue. It would be better to have a system with the accountability that I have set out. That would serve Scotland better in following the course that the Scottish people have decided they wish to follow. The proposed system will not be helpful.
I have reservations about open lists, even under the Conservative party's amendment. Many people are trying to make an unacceptable system more acceptable by somehow allowing greater electoral choice. If there are seven-member regions and each party puts up seven members or more, as is likely, there could be lists of 20, 30 or 40 people. How do the electorate differentiate? Do those who vote Conservative have to assess one to seven or one to 12 candidates for the Conservatives, or does the electorate list all the candidates from one to 30 or 35? That is another way of doing it. There will be complications.
The good electors of Washington state in the United States who, under the American system, sometimes face 20 or 30 different elections, used to put out a pamphlet paid for by the taxpayer informing the public who was standing for what in the various categories. If we went to an open list system we would have to do something similar in order to inform people about the 30 or 40 choices. That is not practical. It would be asking too much of the average elector to distinguish between so many different candidates, particularly as some candidates would not be known and would have no political record. Overall, the system would weaken the Parliament.

Mr. Eric Clarke: The hon. Gentleman has not dealt with the problem of a minority group putting into power a majority Government. Britain has not had a


majority Government for a long time. That is one of the problems that we are talking about. I am for the system. It may not be perfect and it may cause problems, but a minority Government with a massive majority, of the kind that we have seen in the past, is a big problem.

Mr. Syms: The point is that a Government should be not only representative but effective. At the end of the day, we cannot have a wholly proportionate system because we would not have decisions; we would not have a system which worked. The first-past-the-post system is proportionate and does work well when two parties stand.

Sir Robert Smith: Had the hon. Gentleman observed the Scottish Grand Committee meeting the other day, he would have seen how disproportionate the current system is in Scotland. We have a four-party political system, and it cannot cope. We have 56 Scottish Labour Members of Parliament out of a total of 72. The farmers of Scotland do not have a fair voice from their rural constituencies.

Mr. Syms: The Scottish electorate knew what they were doing. They had a choice and, unfortunately for the Conservative party, they did not make the right choice, voting in many instances against, rather than for, Conservative candidates. I accept the system, however, and I support it in principle. I accepted it when we won and I accepted it when we lost. I have been as consistent as those hon. Members who argue for the single transferable vote, as they have done for donkeys years, honourably, although I think wrongly.
I support what I believe to be the best and most effective system. It is also the most consistent system within the UK. It is the system that we use currently, and, I hope, will use in the future for parliamentary elections. Overall, it would strengthen the system because it would result in a more effective and accountable Administration. What is proposed will not solve the problems, so I shall support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Martin. We see on the annunciator that there is to be a statement on the channel tunnel at 10 o'clock. I do not know what its content can be, but how does it affect the voting on this measure?

The First Deputy Chairman: The voting will be completed first. The statement will take place after the voting.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who has studied proportional representation a great deal. I listened closely to what he had to say.
A few days ago, I caused some hilarity when, speaking on the Government of Wales Bill, I described a number of systems being introduced as somewhat alien to the British constitution and the British people. That is basically why I object to much of the Bill. It introduces devolved government and more than one Parliament into one United Kingdom. In addition, to stick to the point, it introduces another voting system which has not been experienced by the British people. It has been experienced to some extent in Northern Ireland, but not in Britain. It is a mixed system, to which I object because it will lead to confusion.
I want to speak briefly against the proportional representation system of voting, because it is an undemocratic system. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it leads to government by secret deals. In a PR system, it is not the electorate who decide the Government. A few minutes ago, the Committee was asked whether it was fair for a party that gets 40 per cent. of the vote to form the Government—and a case could be made that that is not fair; but I would stress that it is far fairer than a party which gets 5 per cent. of the vote deciding who forms the Government; and, under a PR system, such a party can indeed take that decision. The present system is not perfect, but it is the best one available.
PR might lead to a direct ratio between the proportion of votes and the number of seats that a party has, but that is only fair if one looks at the whole area. In individual constituencies it is fair that the candidate who gets the highest number of votes should represent that constituency. It is worth reminding ourselves that it is individual constituencies that form the constitution of this country, so not only are two Parliaments in one country somewhat inconsistent with the constitution and a major change to it, but a change in the voting system to a PR system is, too. Some hon. Members might prefer that, but many do not.

Mr. Gorrie: It is a matter of fact that, in the period since 1707, there were multi-member constituencies for longer than there have been single-member constituencies.

Mr. Robertson: I would not dispute the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of this matter.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Poole. Actually, I made the point that it would be easy in those circumstances for Members to pass the buck to someone else; if a difficult issue arose, it would be easy for one Member to ignore it and let another deal with it. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole made the opposite case, and said that Members would be falling over one another to deal with issues that they particularly wanted to address.
One of my main objections to PR is that it would break the link between the constituency and the Member. That link is respected by constituents; it is respected in this place and reflected in the way we run this place; and it is respected by Members of Parliament themselves. The system whereby one Member represents one constituency motivates Members of Parliament to a great degree. It is clear to constituents whom they should write to with problems; it is clear who they can depend on; it is clear who they are voting for; and it is clear who will represent them. For those reasons, people like the link between the Member of Parliament and the constituency.
Looking at it negatively, it is fair to say that people would dislike the way in which party politics would be exercised in a voting system that was dependent on proportional representation. I do not think that they much like the exercise of party politics in the current system, but a PR system would cause polarisation, and people would not like a system wholly governed by party politics. I say this rather nervously, given the presence of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, but I think that people dislike the whipping system to some extent. In a PR system, there would be even more of what people do not like and very little of what they do like. People want


individuals to represent them—individuals with whom they can identify and who can be blamed if things go wrong.
I also have fears about accountability: Members of Parliament should be accountable to their constituents, but under PR they have to be accountable to those compiling the list. They would serve those compiling the list, because their jobs would depend on their doing so. That would not be good for democracy. In our previous debate, several hon. Members rightly pointed out that sovereignty rests with the people. I entirely agree with that, but under a PR system, sovereignty would rest with the few, not the many—and certainly not with the electorate.
Those are my basic objections to the PR system. I conclude by saying that PR will lead to yet another change in the sense that political parties will henceforth have to be registered, which will turn them into some sort of constitutional body, which they currently are not. That goes against what people actually want to happen and could lead to a host of undesirable constitutional changes.

Mr. David Prior: I shall be brief. I speak with some reticence, because I have no links with Scotland; but it is in the interests of people of all parties in all parts of the United Kingdom that the Scottish Parliament is a success. I also speak in the knowledge that we are speaking against something that would be good for Conservatives in Scotland, so our opposition to proportional representation is principled and not born of expediency.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prior: Not for a minute, no.
I wish to make only four points. Having been a Member of Parliament for slightly more than eight months, I—like all hon. Members—am aware of the importance of the link between Members of Parliament and their constituencies. It is not a party political link; a Member represents all parts of his or her constituency and all sorts of people. If that link is broken, as it will be broken in Scotland, it will be a great shame for the new Parliament.
8.45 pm
Secondly, most ordinary people are pretty unhappy about the degree of control of Members by their parties. The perception in Scotland will be, perhaps especially in the Labour party, that greater control will be given to the parties over Members. That is not a good thing.
Thirdly, and penultimately, although on the surface proportional representation may seem fair, in practice, as a result of coalitions between various parties, the outcome can often lead to the smallest party having a disproportionate amount of influence. That cannot be good for democracy. For example, in New Zealand, which has recently introduced a PR system, the smallest party ended up having the most influence on which party formed the Government. There have been many surveys since New Zealand changed its voting system, and they showed that there has been a switch in what the people would like.
Fourthly, it is not good for the United Kingdom to have two separate, distinct and different electoral systems working side by side. I do not know what Opposition Members felt about the previous debate, but I was not convinced that Labour Members were showing the commitment to the Union that I thought they were before the general election. Two separate electoral systems cannot be good for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Swayne: I shall endeavour to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) because I wish to be brief in speaking to amendments Nos. 63 to 66. In so doing, I shall not state my principal objections to the system that is to be introduced, because I feel that I dealt with them thoroughly on Second Reading. It would not be appropriate to bring those issues before the Committee.
There are inherent weaknesses in the proposed system. First, those who have designed the system have decided on the result that they wish the elections to deliver. They have then gone about designing a system to deliver that result. They have decided that there is to be a new, consensual politics. Accordingly, they have designed a voting system that enforces consensus.
The system is to be gender-balanced. Allegedly, that will make the system even more consensual. Apart from that fatuous nonsense, the proposals play into the hands of the greatest weakness of the Bill, which is that it relies on an abundance of good will. The voting system requires that the parties shall work together to produce consensus.
The problem is that there will be an absence of good will because of the human condition—the fact of original sin. More appropriately, there will be a lack of good will because the Scottish National party will set out to ensure that there are disputes so that it can profit by them. That is the principal difficulty.
A further difficulty is the sheer complexity of the voting system that is being introduced. People understand the quirks, the weaknesses, the strengths and, above all, the absolute simplicity of our existing voting system. All it requires is a cross to be made on a ballot paper. Under the proposed system, the voter will have two votes. The first will be simple enough, but the second will require the use of the d'Hondt formula.
The d'Hondt formula works
by allocating additional seats at each stage to the party with the highest total after dividing the total number of list votes they won across the Euro seat by the total (constituency + list) seats they have plus one.
I wonder what the voter will make of that. Nothing could be calculated to give greater dissatisfaction to the voters than the fact that they cannot understand how their representatives were elected.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: First, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the d'Hondt formula will be used by a returning officer—not by each individual voter, who is meant simply to place a cross on the ballot paper? Secondly, given that the Federal Republic of Germany uses a very similar system, is he saying that the Germans are much more intelligent than the people of Scotland?

Mr. Swayne: I confirm the first point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I am quite at ease with the fact that the voter does not need to understand the complexity of the


d'Hondt formula, but that is precisely the system's weakness. The voter is not considered in the allocation of votes to secure his representative. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to the weakness of the system. In that respect, I would refer him to my remarks on Second Reading, to spare the Committee my repeating them.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I support proportional representation and democracy. I know of no nation that has come out of the one-party system since the breakdown of the iron curtain that has taken up the first-past-the-post system. You name me one—not you, Mr. Martin, but someone name me one. To my knowledge, they have all opted for the PR system proposed in the Bill, or another PR system.

Mr. Ancram: It may not have been behind the iron curtain, but the hon. Gentleman might like to comment on the fact that Italy, having for many years had a proportional representation system—and myriad Governments as a result—is now moving toward the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Clarke: Well, that is up to Italy. I am not in this place to ask what Italy is doing. I am talking about people who had a one-party system. They had a multitude of ethnic minorities and a host of other differences. As hon. Members know, they divided into different sections and different countries—independent and otherwise—and they all went for proportional representation.
I do not underestimate the intelligence of the Scottish people. In the American system, people vote for everyone from the sheriff to the state legislature and so on, in a huge list. It is a bit of an exaggeration to say that that is the type of thing that we shall put before the Scottish people. The ballot paper for the Scottish Parliament will not be as complicated as that.
No one has mentioned the fact that thousands of people out there do not vote. Why do they not vote? They do not vote because they do not believe that their vote will count, because they live in an area that is dominated by one party or the other and they believe that the system is a waste of time. They do not vote because of apathy.

Mr. Heald: How many times when the hon. Gentleman has been canvassing has a person said, "I am not voting because I want proportional representation"? Never.

Mr. Clarke: Well, it was not on the agenda then, but it was on the agenda following the constitutional convention and our liaison with other people for the referendum in Scotland. We should like to ensure a balance of men and women in the Scottish Parliament if it is legally possible; we would do that as a party, whether or not it was done constitutionally. If we did so, a far better situation would arise than exists in this place, because even the gender balance in this place is all wrong. I do not think that I am a male chauvinist idiot; all my life I have voted for the emancipation of women. I am not apologising for that. I am in favour of positive discrimination.
One of our arguments in support of the referendum concerned the geography of Scotland and the dominance of the urban areas. People in the north, in the islands and elsewhere feel isolated. The area is huge, and some communities are closer to Norway or Denmark than to

London. Some people asked what difference it would make if the Parliament were in Edinburgh. It must be explained to them that they will have proper proportional representation. Ethnic minorities and other groups can be represented through PR, in the same way as people from small hamlets and those in urban areas.
We are speaking about democracy. In my intervention, I asked how a massive majority in Parliament could be justified on the basis of a minority vote. That is what has happened in the past, because of apathy, geographical carve-ups, and so on. Many of my colleagues support the first-past-the-post system, because they won. If they did not win now and again, perhaps some of them would think twice.

Mr. Ernie Ross: Now and again? Eighteen years.

Mr. Clarke: Overall, we did not win for 18 years, but I am talking about individual cases.
The new electoral system is a necessity. It may not be ideal and may not suit everybody, but it is certainly a step forward.

Sir Robert Smith: I shall answer the question from the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about how proportional representation was brought up during the referendum, and how the proposed electoral system became crucial to the decision this time, as opposed to the decision back in 1979.

Mr. Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but that was not the question I asked. I do not want a history lesson. I want to know how the electoral system will help his constituents.

Sir Robert Smith: The matter played a crucial part in the referendum because of the way in which it would help constituents. The press and the public constantly raised the issue of the north-east being disfranchised by a Scottish Parliament and dominated by the central belt and the Labour party.
There are Labour Members who have long stood for reform of the electoral system. Why would a party that could gain a huge majority of the seats in a Scottish Parliament offer the electorate a system under which, barring strange political eventualities, its chances of getting a majority are almost completely removed? The Labour party has accepted a major change in the system. Some say that it is because they are nice Labour people, but behind it all is the recognition that selling the Scottish Parliament as an effective working system to represent the whole of Scotland would require proportional representation.
The change helps my constituents because it ensures that they will have a far greater voice in that Parliament. If the hon. Gentleman had observed the Grand Committee when we were debating agriculture, he would understand why the farmers in my constituency want far more Members representing agricultural seats, and more parties that support agriculture.
Under the present system, the Parliament would be dominated by the Labour party—the one party which comes predominantly from the central and urban areas of Scotland. The other parties in Scotland—the Conservative party, the Scottish National party and the Liberal


Democrat party have roots outwith the urban areas. All those parties would have increased representation in that Parliament, thus making sure that a greater voice was heard from throughout Scotland.

Mr. Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that, when the Liberal party stands in Glasgow, it stands as a rural party? Surely it does not. If the Liberal party stands in Glasgow, it stands on behalf of the interests of the people there, just as, when the Labour party stands in the north-east or the south, it fights for the interests of the people there. People recognise that in those areas, which is why they elected Labour Members in increasing numbers.

Sir Robert Smith: There is a disproportionate dominance within policy making and thinking. There must be some reason why the Labour Government are not listening to the plight of farmers in my constituency. One of the problems is that there are not enough Labour Members of Parliament from rural constituencies to influence policy making.

Mr. David Stewart: What is the hon. Gentleman's policy on the funicular rail link? I understand that he has asked questions about it, and it affects my constituency. I remember that, during the election, my Liberal Democrat opponent supported the funicular. It now appears that you are now opposing it. What is the Liberal Democrat policy?

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Hon. Members should be careful about using the word "you", because it draws me into the argument. I have no axe to grind in the Chair.

9 pm

Sir Robert Smith: I wish to concentrate on the issues before us. I will meet the hon. Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber later to discuss the particular issue that he raised.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman help me? It is very important.

Sir Robert Smith: I shall take one final intervention.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman has taught us a great deal about the Scottish Parliament. What does he believe his party can do for agricultural policy through the Scottish Parliament? The people of Scotland are entitled to know.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not dealing with agricultural policy in these amendments, but perhaps we will some other time.

Sir Robert Smith: I shall bring my remarks to a close before we stray into all sorts of different directions.

Dr. Fox: rose—

Sir Robert Smith: Front Benchers will presumably wind up at some point, so the hon. Gentleman can make his point then.
I shall finish on some of the points that were raised in the debate—in particular, that we should ensure that people's voices can be heard. I hope that the Government will recognise that the system would be improved if the lists were opened up to the electorate, to order the people on the list within the party of their choice.
When the Conservative spokesman winds up, I want to know whether the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) represents the Conservative party in its desire to abolish any different electoral systems in Northern Ireland, as he argued that we should not have a different system in Scotland.
Above all—I return to the crucial point—I want to know whether Conservative Members accept the first-past-the-post system and accept that, in Scotland, the vast majority of Members who were elected to represent Scottish constituencies, where this Parliament will be effective, were elected to produce a new and fairer system of election, a system that will ensure that all voices and all spreads of opinion will be fully heard in the Scottish Parliament. I urge the House to reject resoundingly these wrecking amendments, which rip the heart out of the proposal that was put before the people of Scotland in the referendum.

Mr. McLeish: I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government in relation to the amendments that we have discussed on elections, in particular the regional list.
I shall curtail my comments, as part of the exercise is to allow the Opposition the maximum time to participate; we have a tight schedule according to the business resolution.
The point was made about fairness. That is what this is about. We have had a measured, good-hearted debate. The key issue of fairness should always be uppermost in our consideration. The Government are taking a decision that has no party advantage for us. The Conservatives said that they were fighting on a point of principle, not practicalities, but when the elections loom, the issue of practicalities in Scotland will be important. We have no party advantage to obtain. It is important to say that, because we are pursuing a form of proportional representation to ensure fairness. It is a new Parliament; there should be a new politics. Much of the comment has dismissed that notion, but we owe it to the people of Scotland, and we are embracing change.
Apart from being fair, the system is trying to reach out to all parts of Scotland and to all the parties in Scotland. I urge the Conservatives to consider the beneficial effects of the changes that we are making, because, as I shall show later, those effects are substantial. Within the parameters of 1 May last year, the Conservative party had no representation under the first-past-the-post system, but it will have substantial representation in the new Parliament, even if it does not win a first-past-the-post seat. That is a political advantage for the Conservatives.
I shall deal first with amendments Nos. 47 to 49, 63, 241 and 64 to 66. The Government will create the Scottish Parliament with 129 Members elected by means of a combination of the simple majority system and the additional member system of proportional representation. That will deliver a Parliament that reflects a broad range of political views, in line with the commitment given in the White Paper.
The referendum result was a ringing endorsement, and it is wrong for Conservatives to say that people did not understand what they were voting for. We have had a long discussion about the sovereignty of the people, the foundation of which is to trust the people. It does not befit hon. Members to try to suggest that the people of Scotland made a decision that was flawed in terms of the final outcome.
The Government will ask the Committee to reject the amendments that I have just mentioned. Those tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and his hon. Friends reflect the Conservatives' dislike of the idea of proportional representation, despite the fact that, according to our projections, the Conservative party could win some 20 seats in the Scottish Parliament, which is a vast improvement on its Scottish representation in this House.
It is worth reminding the Committee that the purpose of the regional Member system in the Bill is to reduce the imbalance in political representation that can arise when one depends solely on the simple majority system at elections. The winner-takes-all aspect of the simple majority system means that a party can secure a significant number of votes but have no seats. As a result, the electorate can feel disfranchised and distanced from Parliament, because they feel that no one reflects their views. That should be a genuine consideration for the Conservatives, some of whom feel that they should be represented in the House. We believe that that should be the case, because some voters in Scotland feel great distance between the House and their activities. The proportional representation system that we suggest will benefit them enormously.
The result on 1 May brought into sharp focus the need for major change to the voting system in Scotland. Any Parliament interested in democracy cannot sustain the fact that 500,000 votes went unrepresented in the House. The electoral arrangements for the Scottish Parliament will ensure a fairer balance of representation than would be achieved by reliance on the simple majority system. While constituency seats will be contested in the traditional manner, regional seats will be allocated on the basis of proportional representation, but with a corrective element. Taken together, those systems should achieve a much fairer distribution of seats.
The system for returning regional Members is complex, but the voting process is relatively straightforward. Each elector will be able to vote for a constituency candidate and cast a separate regional vote for the party or independent candidate he or she favours.
The proposal in amendment No. 41, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), appears to be derived from the single transferable vote system, which is complex to operate in isolation. It would be even more complicated to operate in the system that we propose for returning regional Members. At a time of numerous changes to electoral systems, we need to make life as easy as possible for the electorate, and the amendment would simply complicate matters. I therefore ask my hon. Friend not to press his amendment.

Mr. Canavan: Would my hon. Friend consider the compromise of a rule whereby all party lists were prominently displayed in the polling stations?

Mr. McLeish: I was about to make that very point. It is a valid suggestion, and we are considering how best

the names on the lists could be publicised. It is important to make that link, and I am happy to take my hon. Friend's suggestion on board.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have commented on the new system. They will have received the notes on clauses and schedules, which show how the new system would work under clause 7. An example within the North-East Scotland European parliamentary constituency is based on votes cast in the parliamentary constituencies at the 1 May election. It takes no account of independents at this stage. The results on a first-past-the-post system were five Labour Members, two Liberal Democrats, two SNP Members and no Conservatives. Under the system that we recommend, and on the assumption that the vote on 1 May was replicated, the result would be five seats to Labour, which is no change, three to the Liberal Democrats, which is an increase of one, the SNP would increase its seats from two to four, and the Conservatives would have four seats instead of zero.
That shows the impact that such a system can have, although it is not necessarily a selling point for Conservative Members. The details of that practical example show the merits of a fairer system, which would be reflected in other parts of Scotland.
I do not agree with the suggestion that regional Members are second-class because they have not been returned in a constituency election. That is not a valid assumption. The lists will comprise people who want to make a contribution to the Parliament, and will be scrutinised more than any other lists for elections since the war. I believe that the parties will nominate good-quality candidates in the constituencies and on the regional lists if they want to maximise the number of seats that they secure.

Dr. Fox: The Minister said that regional lists would help to make up the democratic deficit. Does he accept that if lists are closed to the electorate and people have no say over who is on them and in what order, the democratic deficit will not be made up? At a time when the Labour party's internal discipline makes the Moonies look like a civil rights movement, it is hardly reassuring to the electorate that they will not have a say. Will the Minister, even at this stage, reconsider offering the electorate greater choice about who will be on the lists?

Mr. McLeish: I shall resist the temptation to deal with the comment about the Labour party, because it ill behoves a party that has no Members of Parliament in Scotland to make such a remark. I shall pick up the hon. Gentleman's serious point about open and closed systems when I deal with the appropriate amendments.

Mr. David Stewart: Reference was made to the Moonies, but in my view the Moonies were more successful in Scotland than the Tories at the election. It was argued that candidates on the list would be second-class citizens. What is my hon. Friend's view about candidates under the first-past-the-post system also standing under the list system?

Mr. McLeish: Mr. Lord, you will be pleased to know that I shall again resist the temptation to respond to the first part of my hon. Friend's intervention. The rules and


regulations will allow candidates to be on the firstpast-the-post part of the ballot and to stand under the list system, as long as it is in the same region.
I do not think that the second-class citizen problem would arise. Why should we visit on a new Parliament problems that are being created purely because it is a new idea with a new set of politics? It must be a mature Parliament, and we must trust what we are doing. It is not right to say that because it is a new Parliament, it will be second-class, or that any of the electors will be second-class. That does not make sense, and there is no evidence to suggest that that has happened elsewhere.

Mr. Davidson: Does my hon. Friend accept that problems will arise if two Members represent the same geographical area? On a planning dispute, the first-past-the-post Member may legitimately say that he has an interest, and a regional Member may say the same. If they choose to take different positions, there will be chaos. Protocols and arrangements will have to be drawn up to handle such a problem, otherwise there will be chaos.

Mr. McLeish: I do not accept my hon. Friend's central premise. Just because there are two Members, it does not mean that the system will collapse and there will be a crisis. It is realpolitik: people must talk to one another. There is no evidence to suggest that having both a first-past-the-post group of Members of the Scottish Parliament and a group elected under the regional Member system will create a dilemma and cause conflict. We could throw that up as a possibility, but there is no evidence for it, and we should have faith in our aspirations for the Parliament.

Mr. Ancram: Let me ask a genuine question. If a constituent has a housing problem, who should that constituent write to? Should constituents write to the directly elected MSP, or to the regional MSP? Will there be a difference in work load? I think that hon. Members are worried about that.

Mr. McLeish: We are discussing a great constitutional reform. When I became a local councillor 20-odd years ago, we dealt with questions such as that raised by the right hon. Gentleman: "Who will write to me? How shall I deal with the matter? Should I take it straight to the director of education, or should I send the correspondence to the local councillor first?" Some common sense must be applied. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's question is relevant. Indeed, it demotes the Parliament to suggest that that will be an aggravating factor in the equation.

Mr. Swinney: Might not the committee that the Minister is convening consider what the protocols of the Scottish Parliament should be in regard to important issues that obsess the Conservatives—and some Labour Members as well?

Mr. McLeish: The hon. Gentleman stretches my charity, but I am happy to consider anything in relation to

the consultative steering group. I do not think that there is a problem, but I can write to the hon. Gentleman—as they say—and, perhaps, clarify those points.
If a party runs mediocre candidates in either category, the electorate will quickly pick up on the fact. A good deal of discussion is currently taking place in Scotland about the quality of candidates, and that will ensure that the Labour party, at least, will scrutinise every candidate on every list. In fact, all the other parties will be doing the same. But why should we worry about quality? We have a unique opportunity to get it right—to attract a wide cross-section of people into the first-past-the-post system and on to the list—and I think that quality will be there anyway.
Once elected, a regional Member will have the same rights and responsibilities as any other Member. How well Members do their job will be important to the success of their party at the next election. The regional Member system also allows independent candidates to stand, and, potentially, to be returned if they can achieve sufficient support across the region. That is a useful advance on the proposals in the White Paper.
Let me return to my North-East Scotland example. If we base the calculation on the results of 1 May, we find that 20,520 votes—the votes of 5.7 per cent. of the electorate—would be needed for the election of an independent candidate. It is a low threshold, but it is a useful illustration. We make no apologies for a system that will not only involve the traditional political parties, but allow the involvement of those who do not want to be recognised as members of political parties.
I understand the reasons behind amendments Nos. 105, 106 and 107. Those who tabled them believe that we should give voters more freedom of choice by allowing them to identify their preferred candidate on a party list. The Government considered that possibility, but concluded that the drawbacks were significant in the circumstances that would apply to the elections. I understand that a similar view was reached in the Scottish Constitutional Commission, which developed the proposals subsequently adopted by the Scottish Constitutional Convention and now contained in the Bill.

Mr. Kirkwood: I do not think that the Minister can get away with merely saying that there are disadvantages. Will he share some of them with us?

Mr. McLeish: I shall do that shortly, because I think it important.
It must be borne in mind that the Scottish parliamentary elections will combine a constituency poll with a regional poll, the results of which will be applied on a corrective basis. Candidates may stand on a party list and in a constituency. If candidates are elected as constituency Members, their names will have to be disregarded in the allocation of regional seats to the party on whose list they stand.
The amendments would introduce more complication and, we think, confusion for voters, some of whom may feel that they are being asked to vote twice for the same candidate. I gave an illustration of that earlier. Let me say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West that we suggested a way of achieving a better link between those who will be on the lists and appreciation of them by the electorate. We think that it would go some way towards meeting the concerns of hon. Members.
The amendments assume that voters will always prefer individual candidates. However, the question arises, "What if they do not?" In the interest of simplicity and comprehension, a closed-list system, which the Bill provides, is the best way forward at this time. Of course, voters will still have a direct say in electing their constituency Member. The amendments would complicate matters for the electorate and could lead to confusion and, although it is not a major consideration, they could lead to an increased risk of spoiled ballot papers. Hon. Members have mentioned that.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am anxious to bridge the gap, which I do not think is great. The Minister has diminished the risk that we all face, of the charge that this is a party political stitch-up. Of course, there might be difficulties and the Minister has adverted to some, which I shall carefully consider. Will he keep an open mind on the matter? The Bill has to go to the other place and will come back to us. Will he undertake to leave us just a chink of light on the issue of closed versus open lists?

Mr. McLeish: In Committee and elsewhere, I think carefully about these issues. As I said, the closed-list system is in the Bill, and that will continue. In a spirit of fairness and in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West, I undertake to look at the issue of it being said that there is a closed list because the parties devised it. However, we can go some way towards ensuring the involvement of people in regional areas.
I now come to amendment No. 129. The Government's position is that electors who wish to vote for a political party rather than an independent candidate in the election for regional Members should vote for the party and not for the individual candidates on the party lists. The lists and the order in which candidates will be returned will be published well beforehand, and the Bill makes it clear how seats should be allocated among the people on each list.
I was asked about informing the Scottish people about the new system. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that people understand what is happening so as to minimise confusion. The parties will also want to engage in such an exercise. On the basis of what I have said, the electorate will know who is more or less likely to be returned by their votes. The amendment would leave the allocation of seats entirely to the parties. However, it does not say how or when they should reach a decision on that matter, and that could mean that the electorate had absolutely no idea as to which candidates would be preferred. We do not want that to arise. We want a system in which the candidates are known. The amendment may suit the parties, but it is not at all fair to the electorate, and in the spirit of what I have said, I hope that it will not be pressed.
Amendment Nos. 120, 121, 123 to 126 and 128 would prevent independent candidates from contesting regional seats in the Scottish Parliament. The Government's policy is to allow as wide a range of people as possible to stand for election. We are conscious that many talented people have no direct party political affiliation, and the regional Member system offers them the ideal opportunity of standing and of being elected to the Scottish Parliament.
The provisions have been warmly welcomed, particularly in the highlands and islands and in the borders, where there is a long tradition of independents in local government. That might not be good news for the established political parties, but it is a sign of the new politics that we are trying to develop.
The Government think that it is wholly appropriate for the electorate to be given choices beyond those that are presented by the political parties, and the electoral system in the Bill does that. The Government believe in choice and opportunity, and the new Parliament will provide those. I invite the Committee to reject the amendments.
I shall now deal with amendment Nos. 233 and 241. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) suggested an alternative approach to the calculation of the number of regional Members in any region. He explained that the aim was to try to achieve greater parity in the ratio of electors to Members in any part of the country. I understand the logic of the amendments, but I cannot accept them. The Government recognise that the Bill will tend to favour rural areas to some degree. That is consistent with the Government's aim that the Parliament should be representative of Scotland as a whole and should not be dominated by any one geographical area. I invite my hon. Friend not to press his amendments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok, in speaking to amendment Nos. 237 and 238, raised the intriguing idea that only people who pay income tax in Scotland should be allowed to stand as regional Members. It will come as no surprise to the Committee to learn that the Government cannot accept those amendments. We want there to be no restrictions, and have tried instead to create an open franchise. The fewer restrictions on those who can stand, the better. The amendments are unnecessary, and I invite my hon. Friend not to press them.

Mr. Dalyell: Are we sure that it is not the Sean Connery enablement clause?

Mr. McLeish: We have continually made the point that we are not putting restrictions in place. The issue was raised in the context of tax, and we are not accepting those amendments. The Bill and the literature show that the Government are trying to have an open approach to the Parliament. That is the best way forward.

Mr. Ancram: Mr. Lord, I think that the Minister was trying to tell the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that the gentleman to whom he referred will have licence to stand.

Mr. McLeish: That was not bad.

Mr. Ancram: It was not bad for this time of night. I actually think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) was stirring rather than shaking.
It was interesting watching the Minister trying to sell that voting system to the Conservative party, because the more he suggested that there was a benefit in it for Conservatives, the less enthusiastic about it his Back-Bench colleagues seemed to become. As a salesman, he was losing some of the sales that he had already managed to achieve, while not managing to persuade those whom he was trying to persuade to buy.
The Minister must have heard from Conservative Members—to whom I am very grateful for the way in which they entered the debate—that we feel very strongly on the issue, and that, merely because we might win seats in the short term, we are not for sale on it. We believe that we are trying to achieve the best possible voting system for the Scottish Parliament, and that first past the post will achieve that. We are quite prepared to take our risk—as does every other political party—on the hustings to secure election to the Scottish Parliament on a first-past-the-post basis. I am confident that, when the Scottish Parliament elections come, Conservatives will achieve good representation on that basis in the directly elected seats.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Conservative party therefore fancy the idea of a Scottish Parliament of perhaps 142, which would enable first past the post to operate?

Mr. Ancram: I am not sure that increasing the size of the Parliament necessarily means that there will be a change in the proportions of those elected. I have not done the psephological study on it, although it is an interesting concept. In this debate, lists containing 56 Members have been mentioned. I am sure that, like me, the Minister is conscious that there will probably be far fewer than 56 Members in the long term because the Bill's provision for a boundary revision is likely to reduce the number of directly elected seats—although, regrettably, after the Parliament has been elected—and because, on the same basis, as the White Paper states, there will be a proportionate change in those elected to regional lists. The point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow therefore underlines and highlights one of the system's difficulties.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) talked about lists on walls. In June 1996, we had that precise problem in the Northern Ireland elections on the negotiations, and—because it was impossible to put the number of names on a ballot paper—we resolved it by having printed lists in the polling booths, thereby enabling those who were voting to see who was on the list. I freely give him that advice, as I think that that is the way round the issue.
Conservative Members and other hon. Members raised important points in the debate, which were regrettably not dealt with specifically by the Minister—but then, we are used to him not necessarily dealing with all the points that have been raised. He might like to take account of two points that I think are important.
The first is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) that the currently proposed system would allow a plethora of parties that did not stand in the direct elections to appear on the party lists, and that that could be used as a way of engineering if not manipulating the results. He gave the example, which I have heard gossiped about in Scotland, that some Labour Members might stand on a Co-operative party ticket on the regional list, because they know that no more seats would be available on the Labour list for direct elections.
Clause 4(8) is very unclear about how political parties will be registered. It states:
'registered political party' means a political party registered under any enactment providing for the registration of political parties".

That does not inform us very much. I do not know whether there is an Act in place already to which the Minister is referring or whether there will be an Act. Could we please be told what legislation will provide for the registration, and particularly whether there is protection in it against the type of manipulation and abuse about which we have been talking?

Mr. Davidson: The example that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) cited of the Labour party and the Co-operative party is not necessarily a manipulation of the system. Under the existing first-past-the-post system, the two separate parties feel it best to operate together and run joint candidates. Those two parties, each of which has its own members, structure, general secretary and policies, might feel that, given what the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland said, it is best that they learn new tricks. A new system could mean a new system of running for election. It would be excellent if the Co-operative party ran separate candidates, and I would thank it for reflecting my idea.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has allowed me to flush out what I thought was a rumour but what now appears to bear more resemblance to reality. It strengthens my request to the Minister to inform the Committee—whether now or by putting a letter in the Library at a later date—about the form of legislation that will register political parties and the protection against abuses from wherever they occur. It would be intrinsically bad for the Scottish Parliament if it were felt that it had been elected by some sleight of hand through the regional list system. It is in all our interests that we have an answer to that question.
Another important question was raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). He asked who, after the Bill passed into law, could decide a future system of election if the current system turned out not to work. Would it be the House, through primary legislation, or the Scottish Parliament? It is important that we have an answer to that. Whatever else has been said in the debate, several very severe doubts have been raised about the system. The system may have to be changed, but at the moment we have no idea how. I shall give way to the Minister if he would like to intervene.

Mr. McLeish: I shall come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that after he has finished making his points.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister, because that is an important point.
We have had a full debate. My hon. Friends have covered comprehensively the reasons why we are against such a system of proportional representation. It shook me somewhat when the hon. Member for Pollok reminded us that we might be faced in the borders, where I still have certain interests, with Mummy Steel, Daddy Steel and Baby Steel. That nightmare does not necessarily bode well for the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Davidson: The only thing that is more frightening is the right hon. Gentleman's extended family running for election. If we returned to a different voting system, such


as the one to which I referred earlier, in which there is one acre, one vote, his extended family would virtually be able to sweep the whole country.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is in his place, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Pollok will want to discuss that proposition with him.

Mr. Home Robertson: Is there any truth in the rumour that the right hon. Gentleman might again contest his old constituency of East Lothian? He would be very welcome to try.

Mr. Ancram: I was rather hoping that the hon. Member for Pollok was going to tell us that he would be the Goldilocks in the scenario of Daddy, Mummy and Baby Steel. Perhaps that would give us some hope in the borders.
We have dealt with several important issues in relation to the PR system. I do not want to go over ground that has already been covered, but I shall make several points. We believe that the proposed PR system is neither fair nor effective. It will produce a system that will be decided largely by political patronage.
How the ranking on the party lists will be worked out is a matter for conjecture. I could not help thinking that, if some of the Labour Members who have spoken tonight were standing for such a list now, they might have received notes from the Whips telling them that they had just dropped from first to fifth. That ability to exercise influence on political grounds gives me great concern. We want a live Parliament. The proposed system is dangerous, because it could result in a large proportion of the Parliament consisting of party placemen—or party hacks, as one of my hon. Friends called them.
Several hon. Members have said that the whole point about proportional representation is that it produces moderate and balanced government. That is not my experience of PR. The Italians are moving away from PR to first past the post. The French tried PR, saw extremists being elected as a result and moved away from it again. In Ireland, with a Parliament elected completely by PR, in the middle of intense negotiations, the Government changed not because of a change in political opinion or a general election, but because two coalition partners fell out and a new coalition had to be formed. A different Government came in as a result of a falling out behind closed doors.
The Liberal Democrats say that PR secures balanced, moderate government because it brings in more people from the centre. It may have done in Germany, with the 5 per cent. threshold, but other countries with PR systems have had problems. In Israel, for example, the Parliament and the Government have been dominated for generations by minorities—normally extremist minorities.

Mr. Salmond: What process of accountability, democracy or consent from the people was employed when the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) took over from Lady Thatcher?

Mr. Ancram: I had not realised to whom I was giving way. The hon. Gentleman has not attended the debate

from the beginning and has obviously not heard all the points. He should think carefully about what is being proposed.

Mr. William Thompson: rose—

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman has not been here at all during this debate, so I shall not give way to him.
The Bill proposes a variety of PR that will give enormous power to the parties. It will not necessarily produce the balanced result that those who favour PR want to achieve. Our amendments are designed to remove it from the Bill. We believe that, for all its imperfections, first past the post produces firm, clear government. People can see what they voted for and what they will get.
Before I draw my remarks to a close, I shall give way to the Minister if he wants to reply to me. I shall give my views on what we shall do with our amendments after that.

Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Gentleman said that his party was not for sale. Nobody wants to buy it. Principles and practice often coincide. The possibility of 20 seats may bring about an early rehabilitation.
The right hon. Gentleman made three important points. First, we have no interest in manipulating lists. We want to provide a fair system of voting. We have outlined some of the potential advantages for the Conservatives and for the people of Scotland. Secondly, we shall prepare full proposals on political registration. As soon as they are ready, I shall contact the right hon. Gentleman so that everything is in the open. The proposals will then be put in the House of Commons Library.
Thirdly, questions were asked about any future changes to the system of voting. That is a reserved matter, but we are very relaxed on the basis that there will be discussions within the Scottish Parliament and at Westminster. I have no doubt that, as we move towards changes in Wales and London, possible changes in Northern Ireland and the creation of regional agencies, the constitutional machine will be on the move. There will be much discussion in Westminster and Scotland over the coming years on this important point.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to the Minister for the two pieces of information that he has provided, and I look forward to seeing the draft of any order that will enact the legislation that is passed. He has taken seriously my point, and the point made by the hon. Member for Pollok. I thank him for his solicitude about my party. I shall look at him as someone once looked at St. Luke and say, "Physician, heal thyself." These are serious amendments, and we appreciate that these are difficult matters on which there are mixed views. It is right that we should make clear our objections to this system and to PR in general.

Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman said that his party was not for sale, but there is an important point. We ought to be clear about what his party and others will exact as the price for entering a coalition. Is the Conservative party saying that it will go into the election for the Scottish Parliament stating that it will not go into coalition with another party under any circumstances? Does he agree that other parties ought to make the same commitment?

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman is living in wonderland if he believes that that is the way in which


coalitions work. My experience is that there is a lot of deal-making, smoke-filled rooms and expediency so far as coalitions are concerned. I have had experience of that and if that is what the Government want to create, they are doing a disservice to Scotland for the future.
Having said that, and having had this debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1

CONSTITUENCIES, REGIONS AND REGIONAL MEMBERS

Mr. Davidson: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in page 53, leave out lines 6 to 9 and insert
'the parliamentary constituencies in Scotland'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 205, in page 53, leave out lines 8 and 9 and insert—
'(c) the Western Isles, and
(d) seventy constituencies covering the mainland of Scotland to be determined b the Boundary Commission for Scotland in a way which ensures that the average electorate for constituencies lying wholly or partly within the unitary local authorities of Highland, Aberdeenshire, Moray, Argyll and Bute, City of Aberdeen, City of Dundee, Angus, Perthshire and Kinross, Stirling, Dumfries and Galloway and the Scottish Borders are lower than those lying wholly or partly within other unitary local authorities in Scotland.'.
No. 113, in page 53, line 9, at end insert—
'(1A) The parliamentary constituencies to which paragraph 1(c) applies are those determined by the Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) Order 1995, or those Scottish parliamentary constituencies determined following a report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland as determined by paragraph 3 of this Schedule, except a parliamentary constituency including either of those islands referred to in paragraphs 1(a) and 1(b).'.
No. 114, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 17.
No. 115, in page 53, leave out lines 18 to 37 and insert—'Redistribution of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies—
3.—(1) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall keep under review the representation in the Scottish Parliament and shall submit to the Scottish Executive a report either:—

(a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that Scotland should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof) to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the 1986 Act) in so far as they apply to Scotland, or
(b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules set out in Schedule 2 (subject to paragraph 7 thereof).

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 81 of this Act, the rules in Schedule 2 of the 1986 Act as they apply to Scotland shall have effect in relation to the redistribution of the Parliamentary constituencies in paragraph 1(c).
(3) Subject to sub—paragraph (5), the provisions in sections 3, 5, and 6 of the 1986 Act shall, in so far as they apply to Scotland, have effect in relation to the reports and the workings of the Boundary Commission for Scotland's review of Parliamentary constituencies for the Scottish Parliament.

(4) Subject to sub—paragraph (5), the provisions of section 4 of the 1986 Act shall have effect in relation to the draft of any Order in Council laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Executive for giving effect, whether with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
(5) References to the Secretary of State in the 1986 Act shall, for the purposes of this paragraph, be construed as references to the Scottish Executive and references to "Parliament" in the 1986 Act shall be construed as references to the Scottish Parliament.
(6) The Boundary Commission for Scotland shall submit its first report under this paragraph to the Scottish Executive no later than 30th June 2005.
(7) In the report, the Commission shall also recommend any alteration in any of the regions which, in their opinion, is required to be made in order to give effect to the rules in paragraph 7.
(8) If the Commission do not make any such recommendation under sub—paragraph (7), they shall in the report state that, in their opinion no such alteration is required.
(9) A report making a recommendation for an alteration in any region shall state the name by which the Commission recommend that the region should be known.'
No. 116, in page 53, leave out lines 38 to 43.
No. 117, in page 53, line 46, leave out '3(2)' and insert '3(7)'.
No. 236, in page 54, line 49, leave out '73' and insert '72'.

Mr. Davidson: I shall speak speedily on this matter, as much of the ground has been covered. If this is to be a Parliament for all Scots, and all Scots are to be equal, is it fair that some should be more equal than others? Is it fair that 15,000 Orcadians should have a parliamentary representative in the Scottish Parliament—the same as 66,000 people in Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley? Where is the proportionality in that system? There are undoubtedly problems in Orkney caused by remoteness, but we must recognise that those may be met in many ways; perhaps by providing additional staff to the MSP for Orkney. The Scottish Parliament must take account of the special problems faced by people in remote areas, but not necessarily by making additional provision for them at the centre.
I have listened over the years to Liberals calling for fair votes, but at the first whiff of advantage to themselves, they grab it. "A Liberal seat for 15,000 votes? That will do nicely." Their fine words are easily jettisoned for partisan advantage. I understand why this is being done—clearly a deal has been struck to keep the Liberal Democrats on board.

Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are Liberal Democrats in this place who represent as many as 104,000 people—also on an island—who receive no recognition?

Mr. Davidson: That island, unless I am mistaken, is not within Scotland and is therefore not covered by the Bill. That seems to be a not unreasonable point to make.
Clearly, a back-door deal was done—we can expect many such deals under coalition politics—but there was also an attempt to be inclusive, to try to draw in the marginalised and take special account of those in rural areas, which I welcome. My reservation concerns who is the most marginalised and alienated in Scotland today. I am not convinced that it is the people of Orkney.


There are more people on social security in my constituency than in the whole of Orkney. In my constituency, the unemployment rate is more than three times as high as in Orkney and Shetland. There are twice as many car owners in Orkney than in my constituency. There are three times more lone parents in my constituency as in Orkney, all of whom need representation. Twice the percentage of people in my constituency have long-term illness.
9.45 pm
Education, in particular, illustrates the issue of need and representation. In 1995–96, 72 school leavers from secondary schools in my constituency went on to full-time higher education; in Orkney, the figure was 120. From a population that is less than a third of that of my constituency, many more went on to further and higher education. Who, in those circumstances, is most in need of greater representation? In my view, those who are poor are in greater need than those who are much better off.
Another statistic is worth citing. In my constituency, 23 per cent. of school leavers went on to what are described as other known destinations; in Orkney, it was 8 per cent. "Other known destinations" generally means unemployment, which is far higher among young people in my constituency than in Orkney. Why, then, should the constituents of the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) require three times the representation? That is not fair, proportionate or reasonable.
In my constituency, 19 per cent. of part-time workers earn less than £2.50 an hour. The equivalent figure for Orkney is less than 3 per cent. Who in those circumstances is most in need of representation at a Scottish Parliament?
There has clearly been an understandable concession to an articulate, well-organised lobby. I fear that there will be concessions and special arrangements in the Scottish Parliament for those who are articulate and able to operate the system as, to their credit, the Orcadians have done in this case. Orkney gets a seat to itself, but what about the socially excluded, on the margins of society? What guarantee is there that they will also be provided for?
That is my reservation about the imbalance in representation. I have no particular antagonism towards the Orcadians, who I am sure are all fine upstanding citizens.

Mr. Wallace: I am moved to reply to that onslaught from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson). It was an interesting speech, and betrayed the central Scotland, old Labour mentality that makes this arrangement necessary to ensure that the islands have proper representation. I do not in any way diminish or disparage the social, employment, education and health problems faced by the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I very much hope that the creation of a Scottish Parliament will be a more effective way of dealing with them than Westminster has been for many years, but he must recognise that constituencies have traditionally been based on geography.
It would be an interesting concept if we started to arrange constituencies on a different basis—perhaps on the basis of car owners or non-car owners; numbers of people who go on to higher education; relative number of sheep; or some other criterion. It could create some interesting cross-party

alliances. Of course, that is not how it is done. To be serious, the reason why Orkney and Shetland secured separate representation was nothing to do with secret deals in secret rooms. Representatives of the island areas in the constitutional convention—not only me as Member of Parliament but members of Orkney islands council, Shetland islands council and the Orkney and Shetland movement—argued the case before the convention.
As the hon. Member for Pollok, who is a member of the convention, knows full well, the convention proceeded only by agreement and consensus. The argument made by representatives of the islands persuaded the convention. The recommendation that there should be separate representation for Orkney and Shetland is contained in the convention document. I cannot recall whether the hon. Member for Pollok was present on 30 November 1995 when we all signed the document, but if he was, he signed it, too.
In the context of the referendum, separate representation was important in persuading my constituents to vote yes. Let it be recalled that, in 1979, they recorded a 72 or 73 per cent. vote against devolution. In the referendum last year, both sets of islands recorded a majority vote in favour of the proposals. Although Orkney and Shetland are linked together for the Westminster parliamentary seat, they are two distinct sets of islands. If Glasgow, Pollok was the southernmost part of my constituency, the most northern part would be Dingwall. That is a substantial area to cover, even though the population is relatively small.
Amendments Nos. 113 to 117 seek to ensure that, once the number of Scottish Members of Parliament in the Palace of Westminster is reduced—something that we recommended and the Government accepted—the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament should remain roughly the same as now—129, rather than 105 or 106. There are a number of reasons for that, not least that the Parliament will operate substantially on a Committee basis, and a certain number of Members is necessary to run Committees.
It was foreseen by the constitutional convention that there might be a reduction in the number of MSPs. The convention was of the opinion that there should be a separate boundary commission to examine Scottish constituencies for the Scottish Parliament, which is what I and my hon. Friends have set out in amendment No. 115. I acknowledge that schedule 1 contains an effort to maintain the ratio of 73:56. Perhaps we have to work out the arithmetic in much more detail. Our concern is that the smaller the number of additional Members, the lower the chance of obtaining good proportionality. Our principal concern is that the degree of proportionality could be lost if the overall number, and the number of top-up Members, were reduced.
I hope that the Government are prepared to retain the proportionality that we thought we had agreed. I hope that the Minister will express a willingness to look at that.

Dr. Fox: The amendment tabled in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends would protect against central belt dominance, which was one of the great themes to emerge during the referendum campaign. Whenever one went outwith the central belt, people had a genuine fear that between Glasgow and Edinburgh the political parties and the cliques that dominated the parties in those areas would have a disproportionate say over what


happened in the Scottish Parliament and over the Scottish agenda. That is not a figment of the imagination of the Conservative party. Other hon. Members have said that there is a genuine fear that the central belt will be unduly dominant.
The Bill already specifies special treatment for Orkney and Shetland. The Western Isles have the smallest electorate in Scotland. In our amendment, we merely extend the principle that they should have separate representation and that the numbers in directly elected Member constituencies in non-central belt areas should be smaller. Anyone who represents a rural constituency will know that there is a great deal more travelling and logistical difficulty in representing a rural seat than in representing an urban seat.
At the moment, many of the electorates in Glasgow and other west of Scotland seats are smaller than some in the highlands of the north-east. For example, Glasgow, Anniesland has an electorate of 52,955 while Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber has one of 65,701. Given the huge geographical area that needs to be covered in the latter, it seems only sensible that the electorates in the rural seats should be cut and those in the urban seats increased so that there is some sort of matching between the two.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is developing an interesting theme. Will he concede that much of the debate in Scotland has not been about isolation from this place and the supremacy of this Parliament, but about the separation of the people and power? It does not matter whether that power is vested in this Parliament or in the central belt. People in rural Scotland would feel just as remote in the exercise of political power if it was dominated by the central belt of Scotland.

Dr. Fox: There is a genuine worry about the exercise of power in the central belt. One of the worries that we dealt with in the previous set of amendments concerned the closed list, which the Minister mentioned in his reply, although, given some of the assurances, I am still not yet convinced that that particular threat has been removed.
However, it is important that the rural-urban split is dealt with early on, because it is extremely important to give confidence to areas outwith the central belt at the outset of the political process. We are seeing in general in the House a growing rural-urban split in our politics. It would be extremely unfortunate if that particular brand of politics, which seems to be seeping into the House and which was well displayed yesterday, was to poison the Scottish Parliament at the outset. Some of the arguments made earlier on that were important.
As the link between Westminster and the Scottish parliamentary seats is broken down under the system proposed by the Liberal Democrats, there would be a reduction in Scottish representation at Westminster, but what would then happen in the Scottish Parliament. Do they propose that even though Scottish representation in this House might fall, as the Government envisage, the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament would remain the same?

Mr. Wallace: That is precisely what would happen, because the rule that there must be no fewer than 71 seats in Scotland would continue to apply when the Boundary Commission addressed the question of seats in the Scottish Parliament.

Dr. Fox: The problem is that the electorate may see that as simply jobs for the boys. When Scotland's representation was being cut at Westminster, why should Scottish taxpayers continue to pay for the same number of people in the Scottish Parliament? If there were less for Scottish Members to do in this House, why should they continue to pay for a vast new bureaucratic army to sit in the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh? We could not support the amendment because of that. I understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to do in terms of proportionality, but I cannot accept the amendment, because there would be a disproportionate cost later.
I am sorry that the Minister is being pushed on this, but I look forward to his answer. I hope that he will take extremely seriously the point that Liberal Democrat Members and I have made concerning the problems of rural seats and the disparities between the electorates. That problem was mentioned time and again during the referendum and the Government said that they would try to put it right as best they could. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Mr. McLeish: I shall try briefly to deal with amendments Nos. 113 to 117. The Government are committed to the maintenance of the United Kingdom. We believe that the integrity of the Union will be strengthened by having common constituencies for the Scottish and United Kingdom Parliaments, with the exception of Orkney and Shetland where separate representation in the Scottish Parliament will be guaranteed. The Bill provides that.
I know that the hon. and learned Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has given considerable thought to the amendments and there are arguments on both sides, but we believe that the Bill strikes the right balance. I am mindful that he might not wish to press the amendments to a vote this evening; if that is the case, we shall have a chance to look further at the arguments involved.
I have listened with care to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) in respect of amendments Nos. 233 and 240, but I cannot accept the amendments. The Government gave a commitment in the White Paper that there should be separate constituency Members for the Orkney islands and the Shetland islands and that the present UK Parliament constituency would be split for that purpose. The Government believe that such representation is important to ensure that the interests of the northern isles are properly reflected in the deliberations of the Scottish Parliament.
That embraces the points made by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) that rural areas must be properly represented. That is the purpose of the Bill, and we can deliver on those options.

Mr. Davidson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put That this schedule be the Frist schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 341, Noes 73.

Division No. 142]
[7 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lansley, Andrew


Amess, David
Leigh, Edward


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Letwin, Oliver


Arbuthnot, James
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lidington, David


Baldry, Tony
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Luff, Peter


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
McCartney, Robert (N Down)


Brady, Graham
MacKay, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick


Browning, Mrs Angela
Madel, Sir David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Mates, Michael


Cash, William
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Chope, Christopher
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Moss, Malcolm


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Nicholls, Patrick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Norman, Archie



Ottaway, Richard


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Page, Richard


Collins, Tim
Paice, James


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Paterson, Owen


Curry, Rt Hon David
Prior, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Randall, John


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
Robathan, Andrew


Duncan Alan
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Evans, Nigel
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fallon, Michael
Ruffley, David


Flight, Howard
St Aubyn, Nick


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Sayeed, Jonathan


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fox, Dr Liam
Shepherd, Richard


Fraser, Christopher
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gale, Roger
Soames, Nicholas


Garnier, Edward
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gibb, Nick
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spring, Richard


Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Steen, Anthony



Swayne, Desmond


Gray, James
Syms, Robert


Greenway, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Grieve, Dominic
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hammond, Philip
Trend, Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Tyrie, Andrew


Hayes, John
Viggers, Peter


Heald, Oliver
Walter, Robert


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Wardle, Charles


Horam, John
Wells, Bowen


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Whittingdale, John


Hunter, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Willetts, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Woodward, Shaun


Jenkin, Bemard
Yeo, Tim


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Key, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Mr. James Cran and


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Mr. Nigel Waterson.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Allan, Richard


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Ainger, Nick
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Alexander, Douglas
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy





Ashton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Austin, John



Baker, Norman
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Banks, Tony



Barnes, Harry
Dafis, Cynog


Barron, Kevin
Dalyell, Tam


Battle, John
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beard, Nigel
Davidson, Ian


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Begg, Miss Anne
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Denham, John


Benton, Joe
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobbin, Jim


Berry, Roger
Doran, Frank


Best, Harold
Drew, David


Betts, Clive
Drown, Ms Julia


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Efford, Clive


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Borrow, David
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Fatchett, Derek


Bradshaw, Ben
Fearn, Ronnie


Brake, Tom
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Flint, Caroline


Breed, Colin
Follett, Barbara


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Browne, Desmond
Foulkes, George


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buck, Ms Karen
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Galloway, George


Burnett, John
Gapes, Mike


Burstow, Paul
Gardiner, Barry


Byers, Stephen
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godman, Norman A


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Canavan, Dennis
Gorrie, Donald


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Grogan, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hain, Peter


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Church, Ms Judith
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clapham, Michael
Hanson, David


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Heppell, John


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil


Cooper, Yvette
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corston, Ms Jean
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Cranston, Ross
Humble, Mrs Joan


Crausby, David
Hurst, Alan


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hutton, John






Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Oaten, Mark


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Linton, Martin
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Livingstone, Ken
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Livsey, Richard
Salmond, Alex


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salter, Martin


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sanders, Adrian


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Shaw, Jonathan


McCabe, Steve
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Macdonald, Calum
Singh, Marsha


McDonnell, John
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Southworth, Ms Helen


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John


Mandelson, Peter
Squire, Ms Rachel


Marek, Dr John
Steinberg, Gerry


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stevenson, George


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Stoate, Dr Howard


Meale, Alan
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stringer, Graham


Milburn, Alan
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Miller, Andrew
Stunell, Andrew


Mitchell, Austin
Swinney, John


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Temple—Morris, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Tipping, Paddy


Mountford, Kali
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Mudie, George
Touhig, Don


Mullin, Chris
Trickett, Jon





Truswell, Paul
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Willis, Phil


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wills, Michael


Tyler, Paul
Wilson, Brian


Vaz, Keith
Winnick, David


Wallace, James
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Walley, Ms Joan
Wise, Audrey


Ward, Ms Claire
Wood, Mike


Wareing, Robert N
Worthington, Tony


Watts, David
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Webb, Steve
Wyatt, Derek


Welsh, Andrew



White, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Robert Ainsworth and


Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Division No. 143
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Alexander, Douglas
Coaker, Vernon


Allan, Richard
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cohen, Harry


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Connarty, Michael


Ashton, Joe
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Austin, John
Cooper, Yvette


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Corbyn, Jeremy


Banks, Tony
Corston, Ms Jean


Barnes, Harry
Cotter, Brian


Barron, Kevin
Cranston, Ross


Battle, John
Crausby, David


Bayley, Hugh
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Beard, Nigel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Begg, Miss Anne



Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony



Benton, Joe
Dafis, Cynog


Bermingham, Gerald
Dalyell, Tarn


Berry, Roger
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Best, Harold
Darvill, Keith


Blackman, Liz
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davidson, Ian


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Borrow, David
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dawson, Hilton


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Denham, John


Bradshaw, Ben
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Brake, Tom
Dobbin, Jim


Brand, Dr Peter
Doran, Frank


Breed, Colin
Dowd, Jim


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Drew, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Drown, Ms Julia


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Browne, Desmond
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Efford, Clive


Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff


Burgon, Colin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Burnett, John
Fatchett, Derek


Burstow, Paul
Fearn, Ronnie


Caborn, Richard
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foulkes, George


Canavan, Dennis
Fyfe, Maria


Cann, Jamie
Galbraith, Sam


Caplin, Ivor
Galloway, George


Casale, Roger
Gapes, Mike


Caton, Martin
Gardiner, Barry


Cawsey, Ian
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gibson, Dr Ian


Church, Ms Judith
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clapham, Michael
Godman, Norman A


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Godsiff, Roger



Goggins, Paul


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gorrie, Donald





Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marek, Dr John


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hanson, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Harris, Dr Evan
Martlew, Eric


Harvey, Nick
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Meale, Alan


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michael, Alun


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Heppell, John
Milburn, Alan


Hill, Keith
Miller, Andrew


Hinchliffe, David
Moffatt, Laura


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Home Robertson, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mudie, George


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Norris, Dan


Illsley, Eric
Oaten, Mark


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian
Öpik, Lembit


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Keetch, Paul
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quinn, Lawrie


Kilfoyle, Peter
Radice, Giles


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Raynsford, Nick


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kingham, Ms Tess
Rendel, David


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Rowlands, Ted


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ruane, Chris


Linton, Martin
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Livsey, Richard
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Salmond, Alex


Llwyd, Elfyn
Salter, Martin


Lock, David
Sanders, Adrian


Love, Andrew
Savidge, Malcolm


McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Shaw, Jonathan


McCabe, Steve
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McDonagh, Siobhain
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Macdonald, Calum
Singh, Marsha


McDonnell, John
Skinner, Dennis


McFall, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McIsaac, Shona
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)






Soley, Clive
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tyler, Paul


Spellar, John
Vaz, Keith


Squire, Ms Rachel
Wallace, James


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Walley, Ms Joan


Steinberg, Gerry
Ward, Ms Claire


Stevenson, George
Wareing, Robert N


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Watts, David


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Webb, Steve


Stinchcombe, Paul
Welsh, Andrew


Stoate, Dr Howard
White, Brian


Stott, Roger
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wicks, Malcolm


Stringer, Graham
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stuart, Ms Gisela



Stunell, Andrew
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Swinney, John
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Willis, Phil



Wills, Michael


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Winnick, David


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Wise, Audrey


Tipping, Paddy
Wood, Mike


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Worthington, Tony


Touhig, Don
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Trickett, Jon
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Truswell, Paul
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)



Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Key, Robert


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Arbuthnot, James
Lansley, Andrew


Beggs, Roy
Letwin, Oliver


Blunt, Crispin
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Brazier, Julian
Loughton, Tim


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Luff, Peter


Browning, Mrs Angela
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Madel, Sir David


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Norman, Archie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard


Day, Stephen
Paice, James


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paterson, Owen


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gray, James
Soames, Nicholas


Green, Damian
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Greenway, John
Spicer, Sir Michael


Grieve, Dominic
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hawkins, Nick
Swayne, Desmond


Hayes, John
Syms, Robert


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, William


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Viggers, Peter





Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle Charles



Wells, Bowen



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Nigel Waterson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [13 January] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions to be decided at that hour.

Clause 2

ORDINARY GENERAL ELECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 212, in page 2, line 2, after 'The', insert 'day on which the'.

No. 213, in page 2, line 3, leave out 'on a day' and insert
'and the day, time and place for the meeting of the Parliament following that poll shall be'.

No. 214, in page 2, line 22, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) require the Parliament to meet within the period of seven days beginning immediately after the day of the poll'.—[Mr. McLeish.]

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL ELECTIONS

Amendment made: No. 215, in page 2, line 42, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
'(c) require the Parliament to meet within the period of seven days beginning immediately after the day of the poll'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

DISQUALIFICATION FROM MEMBERSHIP OF THE PARLIAMENT

Amendments made: No. 216, in page 7, line 16, after 'made', insert 'by Her Majesty'.

No. 217, in page 7, line 18, after 'made', insert 'by Her Majesty'.—[Mr. McFall.]

Clause 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

It being after Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. McFall.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

Channel Tunnel Rail Link

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Madam Speaker, I beg leave of the House to make a statement about the channel tunnel rail link.
In March 1996, the development agreement to build the channel tunnel rail link was awarded to London and Continental Railways, known as LCR. LCR also took control of the European passenger services railway company, Eurostar UK, operating services from London Waterloo to Paris and Brussels.
The agreement provided for a taxpayer contribution worth £1.8 billion, due to be paid after 68 per cent. of the scheme by value had been built. LCR planned to raise the project finance through a flotation and major debt-raising exercise, towards the end of 1997.
LCR has recently explained that it has reassessed projections for Eurostar passenger traffic, and has concluded that its original forecasts were far too optimistic. As a result, LCR has now informed me that it would not be able to attract project finance from the debt and equity markets, as planned.
LCR said that it needed a further contribution worth £1.2 billion from the taxpayer over the next 10 years. That was in addition to the £1.8 billion already committed, making a total of £3 billion of taxpayers' money. I have told the board tonight that that was not acceptable.
I regret to tell the House that, at 8 o'clock tonight, the board informed me of its decision to issue me with a formal notice under clause 7.7 of the agreement, to confirm that it cannot fulfil its obligations under the agreement.
The agreement now provides for a 30-day period, during which there will be urgent discussions to reassess the situation and explore any revised proposals for completing the current agreement on the agreed route. I have assured the board that my Department stands ready to discuss, at the earliest opportunity, any revised proposals that it may have to complete the agreement. At the same time, preparations will be made for an orderly handover of the business to the public sector. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I should like to assure the House, the public, passengers and employees of Eurostar, that, whatever happens in the next month, the excellent international train services provided by Eurostar will continue to operate as normal, as we are obliged to ensure by various agreements. Whether on the platform, on the trains or in the booking halls, it will be Eurostar business as usual.
I thank the House for allowing me to make this brief statement. I will certainly report back to the House as soon as possible on any further developments.

Sir Norman Fowler: This was a project that had all-party support. Therefore, does the Secretary of State agree that the aim in the next 30 days must now be for everyone concerned to explore all the options to allow the project to go ahead? If it were to fail, would it not represent a great blow not only to the rail link as a transport project but to the development plans in Stratford and east London? The aim must be to see what other options can be developed. With that in mind, I ask four short questions of the Secretary of State.
First, the Secretary of State referred to a possible handover of the business to the public sector. Will he confirm that he has absolutely no intention whatever of making it a publicly financed project, and that it will go ahead with the help of only private investment?
Secondly, the Secretary of State referred to the reassessed projections for Eurostar passenger traffic. How much of it was due to the effect of the channel tunnel fire? The effect could be temporary. How much was more permanent?
Thirdly, London and Continental had been seeking to conclude a sale and leaseback arrangement for 11 Eurostar trains. What obstacles stood in the way of that arrangement? Will the Secretary of State confirm that, when looking at the options, he will look at all the alternatives, including, in particular, the contribution that Railtrack could make, and that he will have talks with it?
Lastly, is the Secretary of State aware that, whatever political differences there may be between us on this issue, every hon. Member in the House wants the rail link to succeed, and that that should be the aim of policy over the next month?

Mr. Prescott: It is the view of the House that we want to be connected to Europe by a fast, modern railway system. We will spend an awful lot of time trying to secure an integrated railway system. That view is shared on both sides of the House. I am asked to confirm whether I am prepared to provide £3 billion of taxpayers' money for a project that was estimated to cost the taxpayer £1.8 billion. Whether it is public or private, that is the reality.
Arguments about leasebacks may have had more to do with LCR getting sufficient finances to get to stage one before it began to raise the money on the markets. Since it does not have sufficient resources to complete the deal, I have to accept giving back the company to the public sector.
There are 30 days in which, under the development agreement, discussions can take place. I have told the company tonight that I am quite prepared to consider any further proposals it has, if it can complete the contract that it signed with the previous Administration.
The great problem with the deal, of course, is that, at the time—as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) may know, there may well have been an agreement for a channel tunnel rail link; the difference was in the judgment made by the competing companies about passenger traffic—LCR estimated that, at this stage, there would be 9 million passengers. Other bidders said that the figure could be as low as 6 million. It was, in fact, 6 million.
LCR made a wrong judgment about passenger numbers. That is why the deal is in real difficulty. It is not the intention of the Government—I do not know whether it would have been the Opposition's intention—to provide the £3 billion that LCR is asking for. If it can complete the contract, I will, of course, discuss with it public-private contracts, whatever.
What is absolutely clear—[Interruption.] In regard to Railtrack, it is not Railtrack that owns the company at the moment. If LCR wants to make an arrangement with other companies about future changes to the deal, I will be prepared to consider it, but as the guardian of the


taxpayers' interest in this matter, I have to say to that company, or, indeed, to any new company, that £3 billion is too much to pay for the link at this time.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that we have some sympathy for him in having to deal with an agreement botched by the previous Government? If the company must go back into—I am sorry, I mean go into—public ownership, does that mean that investment in the high-speed rail link will fall, or will the Government take on that investment and, if so, at what cost?
Have the Government had any contact with Eurotunnel itself, the financial position of which has not been steady, and which may be put at risk by tonight's announcement? Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that putting the liabilities that result from this into the public sector should be a last resort, not a first resort?

Mr. Prescott: There is a large, complex agreement on the Channel tunnel rail link, involving property and all sorts of matters that made up the grants given to the company by the Government. I was informed of this decision by the directors at 8 o'clock tonight, and my first job was to inform the House as quickly as possible, which is what I have done. Many of the questions they asked I have asked myself, and I have agreed to further talks on the matter.
The hon. Gentleman thought that he was making a mistake by saying that the company would be going back to the public sector. It started off in the public sector, went to the private sector, and is now possibly returning to the public sector.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is almost like going back 20-odd years. In the early 1970s, a similar statement was made when Rolls-Royce had to be rescued by Parliament. We sat through the night and took it back to the public sector because the then Tory Administration had cocked things up good and proper.
Labour Members will do all we possibly can to ensure that this first taste of nationalisation continues. There may be other occasions when we shall have to take similar measures. Some eight months have elapsed since we won a historic victory on 1 May; I did not think that we would be doing this in the first year, but thank God we have started.

Mr. Prescott: rose—

Hon. Members: Answer!

Mr. Prescott: I will try.
I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful contribution. I think that I know his mind on this matter. He is right to point out the history concerning Rolls-Royce. Let me reassure the House that I have been an advocate of public-private partnerships in respect of transport financing. Indeed, I think that the concept of publicly owned, publicly accountable is compatible with public-private financing, and I reassure my hon. Friend that there is a lot of sense in raising private capital, so

long as it is in the form of accountability and public ownership. I may have an opportunity, when the underground case arises, to justify my point.
In this case, under the development agreement, if the company comes forward with an alternative during the next 30 days, it can carry out the contract agreed with the Government, in whatever changed form. Provided that it does not cost taxpayers any more money as has been suggested, I am still bound to consider that as part of the contract agreement. That judgment will be made in the next 30 days; I stand ready to talk to anybody involved to see whether the contact can be agreed.

Mr. Peter Brooke: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the observation of Field Marshall Lord Slim in world war 2 that no news is ever as good or as bad as it first appears?

Mr. Prescott: No.

Ms Margaret Hodge: Does the Deputy Prime Minister understand the anger and despair that will be felt by thousands of my constituents whose homes have been blighted for many years by the proposed channel tunnel rail link? They now face further blight as a result of the mess that we inherited owing to the previous Government's failure to produce a proper scheme. Does he realise that, when the legislation came before the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) and I argued strongly that the financing of this proposal was always unrealistic? The chickens have come home to roost far sooner than I would have dreamed.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister make a statement on the delay that this crisis could cause to the construction of the channel tunnel rail link? Will he please examine again the compensation scheme for those who are affected by the blight, who are locked into home ownership and have lost their freedom to move at different times in their lives?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes some sound points. I cannot answer her questions now, but I hope that I shall be able to give the House a further statement when we have had discussions about the success or failure of LCR under this agreement. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy my hon. Friend on the issues that she raised.

Mr. Tom King: Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that his demeanour at the Dispatch Box is much more appropriate to the gravity of his announcement than the jollity of those on the Benches behind him? The announcement is very serious, and is extremely bad news for east London. It holds out the prospect that we will not get a channel tunnel rail link. We will continue with the existing rail communications to the channel tunnel, whereas the French have a high-speed rail link—[Interruption.]
The rail link may have to be nationalised, and the public sector may have to put up £3 billion, but the right hon. Gentleman's objective must surely be to ensure that it is built. I assume from his statement that he wants to minimise the cost to the public Exchequer, and to involve private finance.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman should realise that the £3 billion is the public sector's contribution to a


project costing £6 billion or £7 billion. Public and private resources are already involved. A doubling of the taxpayer's contribution is not acceptable. I shall wait to hear from the companies.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to mislead the House, but we should remind ourselves that there is an existing channel tunnel link. Many people will be thinking about their holidays. I can assure them that, whether they use the shuttle or the existing link, they can still make their travel arrangements, because those services will continue.
I have long advocated public-private partnerships to raise tremendous resources for investment in the transport sector. Since I have been in this job, one of the difficulties has been renegotiating the terms of the channel tunnel and the channel tunnel rail link, largely because Mrs. Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister, decided that they had to be privatised projects.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that there will be great concern in east London about the implications of this collapse? We are pleased that the Government intend to act with determination to ensure that the project goes ahead and is completed on time, because it will regenerate the economy of east London. Will the Government guarantee that the project will go ahead for the benefit of east London and the whole country?

Mr. Prescott: I deliberately made a short statement, to give the House the essential information. There were many questions that I thought hon. Members would want to ask—and, indeed, some of those questions have been asked—but I cannot give an adequate answer at this stage. There are many questions that I must ask the company during the discussions that will take place in the next 30 days. After that, I shall be able to give a more appropriate and comprehensive reply.
I am afraid that I cannot answer all the questions that are evidently in all hon. Members' minds, without engaging in a full discussion with the company. As I am sure the House will appreciate, difficult negotiations went on all day—until 8 pm. That was quite traumatic for the company as well. I must wait to hear the result of other reflections before I can give a proper and comprehensive reply to the House.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the public contribution to the project went far beyond the £1.4 billion cash contribution? There is the Waterloo international terminal, the freedom from Eurostar debt, and all the railway land that has been given to the consortium. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us that all those public assets will be returned if no deal is done, free and unencumbered? He has said that a £3 billion cash contribution is unacceptable; will he assure us that he will not negotiate well beyond £1.4 billion?

Mr. Prescott: 1 do not think that the company doubted that I was in no mood for negotiation beyond the contract agreement. The £1.8 billion that is in the present development agreement was made up of land, grants and all manner of things. The company is now asking for £1.2 billion in cash, and it wants that to be advanced

earlier than the profile suggested. As the total amount increased, so the risk for the public sector increased. I did not consider that acceptable, which is why I refused to accept the deal.

Dr. Howard Stoate: Does my right hon. Friend share the anxiety that will be felt by my constituents, particularly about the future of the Ebbsfleet station and about the number of jobs and businesses and the future economic prosperity that ride on the project?

Mr. Prescott: That is another of the questions that I want to discuss with the company. If it could find some means by which it could fulfil its contracts, my hon. Friend's constituents' fears would be groundless, because the project would be implemented. At this stage, I cannot see where the money will come from, but I am prepared to discuss that. Until I hear from the company, I do not think that I can say anything more to the House.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that thousands of people in Kent will have been deeply offended by the manifest glee with which Labour Members greeted his statement? Does he agree that that reaction was wholly inappropriate? Furthermore, does he agree that the cheers at the mere mention of nationalisation and public ownership—almost like the reaction of Pavlov's dogs—brings into disrepute any claims that the Labour party may have to be approaching the issue seriously? [HoN. MEMBERS: "Apologise."] The right hon. Gentleman should indeed apologise, and I hope that he will do so at the Dispatch Box.
Thousands of people in Kent, including some of my constituents and those of my hon. Friends—who I hope will catch your eye, Madam Speaker—have been affected by blight, and have been made anxious. [HoN. MEMBERS: "It was your Government!"] Labour Members regard that as a laughing matter. Let the right hon. Gentleman stand up and apologise for his hon. Friends.

Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the right hon. Lady's contribution will assist proper consideration of this serious matter. Over a long period—much of it during the time when the right hon. Lady's party was in government—the problems and concerns of the people of Kent were met by sheer incompetence. The route of the rail link was changed four or five times, and talk of privatisation added to the uncertainty.

Mr. George Galloway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best course for Opposition Members would be to apologise humbly to the House for the disaster that they have visited on the country? Would that not be the proper demeanour for them to adopt? There are those who brayed "Private sector good, public sector bad"—especially when the public sector was investing billions of the taxpayer's pounds in what was to be a private profit-making venture. Was this not a piece of Thatcherite madness from the beginning? Should not we have followed the French example of public investment and public ownership which has given them a successful rail network on their half of the channel tunnel project?

Mr. Prescott: I understand what my hon. Friend says. The difficulty is that one cannot turn the clock back.
We should treat this matter with all seriousness, because the House is committed to desiring and maintaining a modern, fast railway connection to Europe. The Government intend to seek to achieve that, and at the moment we are discussing the failure, for the reasons that I have given, of a particular project. I look forward to modern, fast communications to Europe. I do not want to be outside Europe without such connections, and, while I have some responsibility for the environment and transport, I shall seek to achieve our aim.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: Before Labour Members get too excited about the benefits of public ownership, it might be worth reminding them that this project had its roots in a British Rail proposal on estimates that have proved to be lamentably wrong. British Rail bought at the height of the market a huge number of properties much too early at a cost that decimated the prospects of the property market in my area. It created blight by designating four possible lines.
What is more, not only British Rail but, I have to say, my own Government, flatly refused to contemplate a freight-carrying capacity on which the future of the line depends. We now have a failed passenger project, which is exactly what my constituents forecast. They now want certainty. I congratulate the Secretary of State on coming to the House to give an early statement. Will he promise that my constituents can expect certainty rather than doubt, and freight-carrying capacity rather than mere passenger capacity for which there is no demand?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman has a long history of debating all these issues on the channel tunnel rail link, and he has often been right in his judgments over other judgments. British Rail may have made an estimate of the passenger numbers, but when the deal was done and signed, private companies got together and estimated what they thought the passenger flow was likely to be. This company judged that it would be 9 million passengers. It was 6 million, and another bidder estimated 6 million.
There was much controversy at the time about whether those passengers could be gained. The hon. Gentleman may have commented on that. It was not a British Rail but a private sector assessment. I do not relish whether it was private or public. We must not just make the ideological point that it was British Rail and argue public-private. Why cannot they work together to achieve the objectives that we want? I intend to follow that course.
I shall give another fact to the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent which is not clearly known. When the channel tunnel agreement was signed, it was to be all private capital. The guarantee on which most of the loans were based was that public sector rail, both in France and in Britain, would have to pay for more capacity in the tunnel than it could use. That has contributed to some of the financial difficulties not only of the passenger link but also of the rail freight link. That is why we have had to do a deal on the rail freight side, too. It is nonsense to talk about it purely being private money. As usual, it was underpinned by a great many public guarantees.

Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only Londoners and the people

of Kent are angry, but that the whole nation feels let down? Many people in the north of England looked forward to benefiting from the rail link. We have wasted a decade because of the totally ideological view that the link could be accomplished entirely by the private sector. We now face the fact that the French have been benefiting from the link for years. Their investment came almost entirely from the public sector. Our public sector is now being required to pick up the bill and tidy up the pieces.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has come to the House to make his statement. The House is totally behind him in finding a solution to the problem. However, will he please ignore the disorganised hypocrisy of Conservative Members? They are the ones who should apologise, not only to the House but to the nation.

Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has reminded me of the channel tunnel debates, during which many hon. Members were told that the channel tunnel link would have northern route services. As one of the first casualties of the agreement to face the realities, those services—like sleeper services—were cancelled, causing great resentment. Ultimately, we will have to find some way of making the link work—although, as I said, not at any price. I wait to hear the company's proposals in the next 30 days.

Mr. Damian Green: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that my constituents in Ashford have probably suffered as much blight over as long a period as anyone, and that—not universally, but by and large—they were prepared to put up with that blight and to welcome the prospect of the benefits that a decent high-speed link through the tunnel, through Ashford to London and beyond, would accrue not only to Ashford but to the nation. One of the matters that my constituents will be most concerned about is how long the uncertainty caused by today's announcement will last.
I ask the Deputy Prime Minister for two specific assurances. The first is that, after the 30-day period in which negotiations will continue with LCR, he will try to move as swiftly as possible to one of two options: that the line goes ahead, with either LCR or another operator; or that it is scrapped as soon as possible and replaced by a scheme to upgrade existing lines through Kent—as, over the years, many rail engineers have argued would be a practical alternative. The second assurance is that, in no circumstances, will he or anyone else attempt to reopen the route by trying to draw new lines across the maps of Kent, as that would cause blight for many thousands of people.

Mr. Prescott: No hon. Member who remembers our debates over the years and the very real blight problems in the south-east would want to reopen discussions on the link; we are discussing the link and the route that are associated with the contract. I cannot give full answers to the hon. Gentleman's questions, except to say that it is sensible to start thinking of how we might relieve rail congestion. In planning the link, about 80 per cent. of services and income were based on improved Network SouthEast trains. In achieving a modern transport system, we have a great desire for those improvements to be made. However, I cannot comment on those judgments until I have had further talks with the company.
As for the suggestion that another operator might take over running the company, an awful lot of public money would be required. For the next few years, until the income stream provides a return, Eurostar's projected losses would require a subsidy of about £1 billion. That is a lot of money, and I have not seen any private-sector interests queueing to provide it.

Mr. Harry Cohen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the shambles derives from the previous Government's poor decisions, and that it has serious implications for east London, including Stratford and its surrounding areas? Will he give a promise to ameliorate the ill effects that that shambles will have on Stratford and those areas?

Mr. Prescott: It is quite improper to comment until I hear from the company whether it has a further proposal to extend the contract. That is what I have told the House, and I cannot say more than that.

Sir John Stanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clearer assurance than he has just given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green), and an absolutely clear statement to the House, that, if the channel tunnel rail link is built, the Government's policy is that it will be built on the line as agreed in legislation passed by the House, and on no other route?

Mr. Prescott: I have made it clear twice; I shall try a third time. The contract is wedded very much to the route. There is no intention or desire to move away from that route. I thought earlier about whether I could give a later statement, but I took the view that I should make a statement to the House as soon as possible. The financial implications require me to do so. I have not given many answers to the House. I would like to give a fuller statement. That will be made as soon as I know whether the project has failed, and whether the company is no longer able to find an alternative way of building the link as required under the development agreement.

Dr. John Marek: I congratulate my right hon. Friend, and wish him well in his negotiations. Does he intend to make an integral part of any new arrangements fast trains, using the rail link, going through London to the midlands and the north?

Mr. Prescott: It has always been the desire of my hon. Friend and many of us to see those fast links go further than London. That should be the intention of any modern transport system. Again, I must ask that I am allowed to wait and see what I have got—whether the company can do a further deal. It has asked me to stand by for further negotiation. I intend to do that. It has notified me that, within 30 days, the keys must be passed to me as the person responsible for the railway system. Until the company makes the statement and I have completed those discussions, I cannot add anything further.

Mr. Roger Gale: I am sure that all Kent Members of Parliament appreciate the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has come to the Dispatch Box as fast as he has to deliver the message—however unpalatable it may be. I am personally grateful to him for that. He will be aware that those of us in east Kent who represent

channel ports and constituencies with channel port interests have been very concerned at the full effect of the channel tunnel on channel ports. He is much better placed than most to appreciate the threat faced by the cross-channel ferries from the ludicrous imposition of some new registration schemes for passengers and the loss of duty free trade. I know that he appreciates the value of cross-channel ferries to the prosperity of the nation. Will he assure the House that the ferries are not about to face back-door unfair competition as a result of a huge subsidy to bail out the project?

Mr. Prescott: That is a little wide of the statement. I am pleased that my Government decided to agree with the shipping companies on a regulated arrangement, so that there could be more stability on channel services and the public interest rather than the interests of competition was met. Matters relating to the channel tunnel are much better, because we rejected the previous Administration's view to leave it all to competition, which was causing great uncertainty. With the agreement of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, we have agreed a better system, which brings stability and requires the public interest to be better met.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when the dust has settled, an independent observer would contrast the ability of the French and German Governments to build through public-private partnerships fast rail links, with the inability of the Conservative party—through dogma—to deliver links in this country?
The £1.8 billion already committed by the Government, and any additional monies that may be committed, will be contributed by taxpayers from every part of Great Britain. Those taxpayers, including the majority who live north of London, will be expecting this public investment to show a return for them in the regions north the London. Simply to complete a service to London, although that is necessary, will not be good enough.

Mr. Prescott: Whatever the inadequacies of the present development agreement, under which £1.8 billion is provided, that £1.8 billion will not be increased. We are not considering whether we should increase the subsidy beyond what is in the agreement. We may have to look at that if we find that there has been a total failure, or the company says that it can no longer provide a successful project. That is all I can say, and that is all I am reporting to the House.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that Conservative Members wish him luck over the next 30 days in trying to negotiate a new deal, in the initial circumstances, with London and Continental Railways? Such circumstances—perhaps—occurred because the previous Government defended the taxpayers' interest too rigorously for the consortium.
I suspect that there is a difference of opinion between the Secretary of State and the Treasury, which I suspect is putting pressure on him, on the merits of putting £1.2 billion or some sum between £1.8 billion and £3 billion into the project. Will he assure the House that


the Treasury will not play unnecessarily hard ball, and that we will not end up with a poorer project that costs a great deal more than £3 billion?

Mr. Prescott: The agreement, which involves a commitment of £1.8 billion, was agreed by the Treasury of the previous Administration. The hon. Gentleman should not think that I am going to negotiate, or that there is any difference on the issue between the Treasury and me. We have said that we are not prepared to find £1.2 billion on top of the £1.8 billion that the previous Government negotiated, which we honour in the contract. That is not acceptable. I hope that the companies take that into account when they come back with their next deal.

Ms Oona King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we are to have a fast, reliable and efficient service, it must not be driven purely by ideological dogma? However unpalatable the fact, we must accept that, in this instance, the private sector has not delivered, and, in France, the public sector has. I worked at the European Parliament in Brussels for five years, and I had to put up with howls of derision and laughter from French, German, Spanish and Italian colleagues who travelled through the tunnel. When the train arrived in this country, it invariably broke down. I wish my right hon. Friend the best of luck, and thank him for bringing the issue to the House so quickly.

Mr. Prescott: The House will agree that we would prefer our trains to go at the same speed as they are travelling when they enter the tunnel from the French side. We intend to give the British people as good a transport system as the French have.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that LCR got the contract by grossly over-estimating the traffic by 50 per cent.? Will he assure the House that taking the project into the public sector is not a euphemism for finding the £8 billion that he admits will be the total cost? The trains are running perfectly well at the moment. The extra money is needed to build a monstrous and vandalistic stretch of rail and concrete across Kent. Why does he not drop the whole project, and let matters stay as they are?

Mr. Prescott: I cannot drop the whole project, because the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member committed me to a contract, which I am honouring. If the company comes up with a deal and says that it can build the line and operate it for the price in the development agreement, I am bound to accept it. As for taking over Eurostar, it is not making a profit, and is not envisaged to do so for some years. It will still be costly, whether to the private sector or the public sector. LCR made the wrong calculation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, putting a huge hole in its finances. That is why the contract is unlikely to be met.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, preparing us to ensure that the public sector runs the project if all else fails. He will be aware that, in east London and in my borough, there has been enormous concern about the environmental

damage that the original plans and route would have done. I understand what he has said about maintaining the existing route. Will he assure the people of the urban areas of London and the rural areas of Kent that there will be no cuts in the environmental improvements agreed during the planning, and that the tunnelling arrangements will not be ended? All the campaigning, deputations and demonstrations must be borne in mind, and there must be no change to the planned route, which is part of the Act.

Mr. Prescott: The route is already contracted for in the agreement, including the arrangements for which parts of the line go in tunnels and which parts go overland, as well as the environmental protection arrangements. We shall have to wait and see what proposals the company comes up with in the next 30 days. Until we hear that, I cannot make any further comment.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Is not the reality of the announcement this evening that the channel tunnel rail link has never been an economic viability? The last Government wanted it done totally by private sector finance, but were eventually persuaded to part with £1.8 billion of public funds because the customers were not willing to pay to speed up the journey by ten or twenty minutes.
Is not the prospect of spending £3 billion of public money—or even spending £8 billion to take over the whole project, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) mentioned—nonsense? Whatever his gut feel for rail may be, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we should not be spending this amount of the United Kingdom's resources—private or public—on something that will always be a white elephant.

Mr. Prescott: Before it becomes history that the cost of the project is £8 billion, I should point out that a lot of factors make up that figure, including servicing the debt. Whether the figure is £7 billion or £8 billion does not matter at present—what is relevant is that a contract is before us which I am quite prepared to honour. The company has said that it cannot honour it, and it has 30 days to consider that matter.
The hon. Gentleman may lead the House to believe that the numbers of passengers using the service are not increasing. In the last few years, the passenger figure doubled from 3 million to 6 million. Other companies which bid for the contract thought that that was a proper projected rate for the traffic. The company with the contract thought that the figure should be 9 million, and built its whole financial agreement on that. It made a terrible mistake, and we are debating that tonight.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Is it not clear from my right hon. Friend's statement that the whole concept of the transfer of risk to the private sector for essential infrastructure is nothing more than an expensive sham?

Mr. Prescott: Clearly, if we paid the bill that the company is asking us to pay, it would be expensive—costing up to £3 billion. There are good examples of combinations of public and private finance providing for infrastructure. That means that public money can be used to pay for other things in the economy which my


hon. Friend and I feel are important but which cannot be met by private means. In transport, private means can be found, and where there is an income flow, one can borrow against it. I have not set my mind against that, and I am quite prepared to consider anything that improves the transport system for the benefit of this country.

Mr. Oliver Letwin: I appreciate the hesitancy that the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly displayed, as he would not wish to say certain things in the course of what will no doubt be a perplexed negotiation over the next 30 days. However, a simple question has been asked repeatedly in various forms by my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman could reassure us on this point.
If, during that thirty days, the negotiations should, alas, fail, and if the project should thereafter be transferred back to the public sector, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the public sector will not come up with what he has described as £7 billion or £8 billion to carry the project forward in its current form?

Mr. Prescott: I can assure the House that the Government would not feel that paying £7 billion or £8 billion of public money to cut the channel tunnel rail link services by 35 minutes was a priority. That is the argument with which we have been presented, but that is not the bill. Some in the company would say that we were getting a £5 billion facility for £1.8 billion of public money. These are the judgments one must make in these projects.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman—and others—who said that I am in perplexed negotiations. I do not want to misguide anyone outside this House. I am not in negotiations; I want to hear from a company about whether it can complete its contract.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Is not the whole saga a terrible scandal? We are not talking about only £1.8 billion from the public sector. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, Waterloo international station—which is barely completed—was handed over for £165 million; St Pancras hotel was handed over for £75 million; and the King's Cross railway lands—God knows how much they are worth—were also handed over. The whole thing has been a scandal.
The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) talks about £1.8 billion. The Conservative party sold the entire British Rail network for £2 billion. We are talking about a 68-mile-stretch of line for £1.8 billion—the Conservatives sold off British Rail for £2 billion. This link should have been built a decade ago, and the person responsible was the noble Lord Parkinson, who decided in 1990–91 that there would be no public money to build the link. The link will never be built without public involvement. It could be

entirely and directly in the public sector or in a partnership, as must be possible, between public and private sectors.

Mr. Prescott: There is a history to be written about the plundering of assets during privatisation, but that is for another time. Clearly, the issue before us is the building of the channel tunnel rail link. I am well aware, as my hon. Friend said, that the judgment was that no public money would be involved; but that is simply not true of either the tunnel or the rail link. Public money was involved, despite a clause that said that it would be illegal to subsidise the tunnel.
It is a matter of interpretation of the way in which finance works: if the private sector cannot find the money, the public sector must underpin the loan to some extent. That is precisely what happened with the tunnel. It was a sorry episode, but we have a tunnel and we want the fast links, which are an important part of a modern economy. They must be built, one way or another.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for coming to the House so promptly with a statement. He has to make the best of a very bad job, bequeathed to him by the dogma-driven divisions in the Conservative party, not only because this is the worst property blight problem in the history of this country, but because, as his statement definitively demonstrated, the only way in which to get infrastructure built is to have a fluid and flexible line between the public and the private sector, without any dogma about private sector always being good and public sector always being bad.

Mr. Prescott: There is an awful lot of common sense in bringing the public and private sectors together, especially in transport investment. I have been an advocate of that for a long time, and I continue to advocate it.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this delay will cause great concern to those of us who represent seats in and around the Medway towns, and that it is absolutely vital that the construction of the channel tunnel rail link and the widening of the M2 over the Medway valley happen at the same time? We have been campaigning for that for a long, long time. It is essential, to avoid further chaos in and around the Medway area.

Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but we are drifting into the area of motorway policy. The roads are under review, and a White Paper on integrated transport is to due to be published. I will have the opportunity to give proper answers to such questions when that has happened.

Housing (Brown-field Sites)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McFall.]

Dr. George Turner: The subject of the debate should have been linked as a sequel to an important debate in the House yesterday, when we had the opportunity to discuss seriously the compromises required to ensure that we have adequate housing, for 2012 in particular, along with proper protection for the green belt and our rural environment.
Responsibilities in Committee kept me from much of the debate, but, having read Hansard and heard some of what was said, I judge that it was a sad reflection on the House's ability to examine the nation's priorities and policies.
The problem with the Conservative party is its record in government. Having spent 30 years in rural Norfolk, I know the shame with which the Conservatives should regard their planning policies over that period. Like the grand old Duke of York, they first led us to build out of town. Driven by a dogma of priorities determined by a need for competition, they presided over urban sprawl and inadequate facilities for the estates that were built. As chairman of my local education committee, I spent several years picking up the pieces, because they did not even plan for the schools in those urban sprawls.
Again like the grand old Duke of York, the Conservatives then marched us all back into town again and we had a pretty rigid period of policy in which certain developments could take place only in the town centre. It was a shameful record. No wonder they had to use yesterday's tactics of slur and other topics to avoid the serious issues.
I assure my hon. Friend the Minister that people in my constituency want serious debate on serious issues. Last Friday, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary came to King's Lynn, the main market town in north-west Norfolk. Some 600 to 700 people turned up to hear him discuss the serious issue of crime, rather than the drivel from the Opposition that we hear so often, and heard again this afternoon at Prime Minister's Question Time.
Several organisations have written to me in the short period since they found out that I had this Adjournment debate. They include the National Farmers Union, the Norfolk Society, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I know from the work that I have done with the King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council and the interest taken by the county council and charitable bodies, especially the Clean Rivers Trust, let alone commercial organisations, that people see that there is a real issue to be tackled and that there is a need for real debate and a change in policy to reflect the needs of the country in the next millennium.
I have noted with interest and pleasure the Government's robust and innovative approach, led by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to the issues involved. I have read with interest the press releases. I want to bring to the House a specific example of a site. I can speak with some authority, having researched it, about the detail of the problem. I ask the Minister for assurances that I can carry back to my

constituents in North-West Norfolk, who are interested in the real debate, not the shambles that we had yesterday, that the Government intend to do something about the problem, which we need to tackle.
The site to which I wish to refer is largely derelict. It is mainly a former fertiliser works, with adjoining land, commonly known in the locality as the muckworks. That reflects the fact that, for many years, the site was used to produce fertiliser for agriculture, which dominated my constituency for so long.
The site is on the outskirts of the town of Lynn on the south side. It is bounded in part by the River Nar and in part by residential properties on the Saddlebow road. It has a mixed history over 100 years of industrial use. Records are poorly kept, but we know that many of the industrial activities that have been undertaken there have left the site contaminated. We know that the contamination includes cyanide, asbestos and a range of pasties that will make it difficult for any owner to clean up the site and for any developer to develop it.
The site currently has three owners. The main site—the muckworks, some 32 acres—is owned by Benside Ltd. a company owned entirely by well-known local business men who will be personally known to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) through his associations with football in the county. The company has little financial backing. The borough council owns some 14 acres of former allotments. One wonders how safe those allotments were for a number of years. The balance of the site, mainly cleared, is owned by Dalgety plc.
I mention that to the Minister because it is interesting that most of the contamination probably came from gas works and the former fertiliser works, which were operated originally by the West Norfolk Fertiliser Company, which has been purchased by Fisons Ltd. None of the current partners had any involvement or association with the activities on the site or with the West Norfolk Fertiliser Company or Fisons. Therefore, the current owners cannot be held responsible for the contamination of the site. I suspect that the land was bought as a bit of a pig in a poke.
The site is identified as a key site within the county of Norfolk because, on its own, it could provide one twelfth of the borough's housing needs in the planning period that we are addressing. Its problems and opportunities are typical of those presented by brown-field sites as an alternative to unnecessarily building on the green and pleasant land which much of Norfolk still remains.
We have to build, and some of our villages will need to build on fresh land. We will never build all we need on the brown-field sites, but we can and must ensure that, where possible, there is proper encouragement to do so.

Dr. Ian Gibson: The strong Labour-controlled council in the fine city of Norwich has been responsible for decontaminating land and riverside, and building 1,500 dwellings on brown-field sites of some 24 hectares, and 1,400 houses on city green-field sites of some 46 hectares. Is not that a fine example of how, even in inclement times with no Government support for 18 years, with determination those brown-field sites can be decontaminated and developed to provide the houses that our people need?

Dr. Turner: I recognise the importance of local initiative, and I hear and commend what my hon. Friend


says. However, local initiative has not been lacking in my constituency either. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that it is not a matter of asking the Government to bail us out.
Those who have responsibility, including the borough council, which has been assiduous in looking for ways forward for these sites, have been considering what can be done. The problem is that their resources remain limited. A proposal to consider the technical requirements of decontamination, which have changed significantly since work was carried out around 1990, is out to tender.
English Partnerships' willingness to fund up to 40 per cent. of the cost of the initial study is most welcome. However, the study of how to decontaminate the site may require a five-figure sum. To pluck a figure from the air of the order of magnitude that is required, £5 million may be required to decontaminate the site once that study is complete. A little more than the contribution that the borough council can make will be required if we are to see building, rather than talk about building, on brown-field sites in my constituency.
In principle, English Partnerships can offer financial assistance for decontamination works, as the site is within one of its priority areas. That support is most likely towards the abnormal infrastructure costs and would be through gap funding the cost of reclamation against the site value. English Partnerships can either make its support as a direct grant or on the basis of a deferred share in any development. At the moment, English Partnerships cannot provide any further information on its level of support. It will not be able to assess that until the proposed development costs and, in particular, the decontamination costs are known.

Mr. David Prior: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although decontamination can be expensive and is a major consideration on a number of brown-field sites, two other factors must be taken into account? First, it can take a long time for a developer to put together a package for a brown-field site and, secondly, VAT is charged on refurbishing houses and not on new-build. Those two factors should be taken into account more in the Government's future planning guidelines, to encourage brown-field rather than green-field development.

Dr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Indeed, on the site that I am talking about, one option would have been to make a submission under the single regeneration budget challenge fund. However, if the bid is successful, the year-to-year funding does not provide sufficient flexibility, and a complex site in multiple ownership could easily lead to the sort of slippage that the challenge funding would not accommodate under its rules.
The local involvement and commitment to the site are clearly there, but to meet the requirement in the plan that the site be multi-use in future will require some Government involvement and help. If there is to be decontamination of the site and redevelopment of the former fertiliser works, in reality—rather than just talk, which is what happened under the previous Government—there will have to be a strong public-private partnership where the public sector provides the important and essential role of pump-priming the process through the injection of capital both at the beginning and at critical

stages throughout the development, assisting the provision of, or directly providing, infrastructure. It will also require a positive and flexible planning process that will enable redevelopment to become a reality. That may mean giving a more responsive interpretation of planning guidance than we have seen hitherto.

Mr. David Drew: I cannot match my hon. Friend's knowledge of his local scene, but, in a debate yesterday, we had an opportunity to discuss the sequential principle, which is that, if we allow developers to develop green-field sites, that must be as part of a commitment to brown land. The degree to which that is tied in may be the subject of some flexibility, and may require some changes in attitude.
Does my hon. Friend agree that, in the short term, that could be done by strengthening the conditions under which green-field sites are currently used and making the conditions relating to brown land less rigorous, thus changing the balance in the hope that developers would respond accordingly?

Dr. Turner: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but this is only the start of the debate. What I welcome about the Government's approach is that they are clearly interested and willing to make changes to the planning and financing regimes.

Mr. John Hayes: At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman condemned the previous Government in respect of what he describes as urban sprawl. It is all very well to talk about changes in planning procedures, but planning authorities—many Labour, some Tory—have a key responsibility for some of the worst decisions that have been taken. Any liberalisation of the planning procedures should not be designed to give still more power to people who have a dodgy track record.

Dr. Turner: That was not a helpful intervention.
I should like the Minister briefly to address the following points. May I take back to my constituents a recognition by the Government that the market towns and the rural environment need the protection that can be provided by proper attention to development on brown-field sites? This is not an inner-city issue, but one related to market towns.
Will the Minister confirm that, with innovative measures in mind, the Government are looking at ways to provide carrot as well as stick in the process, to ensure that we get building in the most appropriate sites? Finally, will he confirm that, in the review of planning procedures and while balancing the protection of the town centre correctly, the Government will ensure that they will sensitively approach the need for mixed-site developments and so enable the development of sites such as the muckworks to become a reality instead of remaining a pipe-dream, talked about year after year as under the previous Government?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) on initiating the


debate. After yesterday's debate on the protection of the countryside, my hon. Friend could not have chosen a more topical subject. I am especially pleased, however, that he has chosen the positive dimension of building on previously developed land as the focus for debate tonight. He was supported in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), and other hon. Members contributed to the debate. They all predominately focused on the positive dimension to which I referred.
My hon. Friend's topic has a clear and constructive purpose, and that is to make our town centres and cities better places, rather than focusing on a narrower, more negative and possibly "not in my backyard" approach. On the strength of last night's performances, that approach tends to dominate the Opposition's thinking.
The debate provides another opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings, to set out some of the facts and to clarify how the Government's thinking on this important subject is developing. As we said in yesterday's debate, we shall be making an announcement next month on household growth, on household projections, on how they are to be translated into development plans, on targets for the use of previously developed land and on how to prioritise where new development should go. I am sure hat the House will understand that I cannot anticipate that announcement, but I should like positively to respond to my hon. Friend's comments.
The latest household projections, produced under the previous Government, were for an extra 4.4 million households between 1991 and 2016. Already, more than 1 million of the homes that we need have been built since 1991. The projections have been endorsed by two independent inquiries. The numbers may seem large, but they involve only an extra 175,000 households a year. If that is translated into housebuilding, it means 175,000 extra homes a year, which is a low figure when compared with the rates of housebuilding since the war, and far lower than the levels of new housebuilding during the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. We need to get that into perspective.
Those who wish to raise scares conjure up the figure of 4.4 million as a horrible prospect. The reality is that it will be one of the lowest levels of new housebuilding in the post-war era.
When we make our announcement next month, it will be seen that we propose a number of things. First, as my hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning told the House yesterday, we shall move away from the old "predict and provide" philosophy in housing. We do not believe that the patterns of the past should always dictate the future. Changes in policy can, and will, make a difference. At the same time, we recognise our responsibility to ensure that every member of our society has the opportunity of a decent home.
Secondly, just as we want to give political power back to people in Scotland, Wales, London and the English regions, we want to decentralise decision making on a range of issues, including how the regional housing figures will be arrived at. We shall listen more to what people have to say locally, on how to accommodate household growth.
Thirdly, we want to avoid unnecessary building in the countryside. The presumption against development in the green belt will remain as strong as ever, but that does not mean that there will never be any building on green-field sites.
Fourthly, we want to make the maximum use of previously developed land and buildings within urban areas. My hon. Friend is particularly interested in that. We recognise that what is achievable will vary from place to place. North Norfolk, for example, is very different from south-east England, let alone the north-west. Our policies will seek to reflect significant regional differences.
We see making the best use of previously developed land and buildings as central to our strategy. We are concerned that too many approaches to assessing capacity are conservative. They have been defensive exercises designed to show that a county is full up and not serious attempts to explore the options by examining more imaginatively issues such as densities, car parking and other standards.
A recent study for London, commissioned by the London Planning Advisory Committee and the Government office for London, considered what that would mean. I accept that the study's findings are not necessarily appropriate in every part of the country, but there are general lessons to be drawn from them. The scope for creating more housing, especially round town centres, needs to be more fully explored. We should look at buildings as well as sites, and ways of finding more housing and providing a wider range of choices.
We are committed to enhancing the quality of life in both town and country. Part of that means a good-quality environment. We must ensure that, when we build or convert housing in our towns and cities, those new homes add to the quality of the urban environment. Good design is crucial to creating a better quality of urban life—so, too, are jobs, good transport links and access to services. We must not forget the importance of parks, green spaces and recreation facilities. Our approach will encourage high-quality urban design and developments that enhance the urban environment—not "town cramming", which would be an inappropriate response.
We are committed to the regeneration of our towns and cities. We want to make them more attractive and more sustainable. We are already refocusing our regeneration efforts on the worst areas. We have allowed councils to increase investment through the capital receipts initiative, to renovate rundown housing.
It is crucial to improve our towns and cities. If we cannot make them more attractive, people will continue to leave and the pressure will really be on the countryside. We cannot protect the countryside at the price of a poor urban environment.

Mr. Prior: Will the Minister take into account the need to regenerate not only bigger towns and inner cities, but small market towns, such as North Walsham and Fakenham in my constituency?

Mr. Raynsford: I will indeed, but the debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk, and I shall say a little bit about regenerating small towns, such as King's Lynn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that, in an Adjournment debate, prime attention must be given to its initiator, and that I show no disrespect to his concern.
Overall, it is our approach that is getting support—whether from the Countryside Commission or the House-Builders Federation. People are starting to understand that we must look at the big picture—how to create more sustainable towns, make the best use of brown-field sites, and protect the countryside and the green belt.
Household growth is an opportunity not only for urban regeneration but to promote more sustainable patterns of development. We can build on the advantages of existing towns, using and supporting existing infrastructure and services. In Norfolk, as the county has suggested, that could mean putting major new developments in the key urban areas, such as Norwich, Great Yarmouth and King's Lynn, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. It could mean encouraging development in various towns that act as centres for rural areas, including some in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior), and allowing development in other smaller market towns, represented by the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. I think especially of Hunstanton in my hon. Friend's constituency.
I know that King's Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, which has one of the highest housing figures in Norfolk, has been actively considering that issue—indeed, it is one of the few local authorities that have a policy that sets a minimum density. I only wish that more did that, because low-density housing developments tend to be the biggest consumers of land. Therefore, if we can achieve higher density in appropriate circumstances—I am talking not about a return to soulless estates or to high-rise housing, which was a disaster in the past, but about sensitively, well-planned housing at high density—that can help to contribute to the solution.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk is worried about other types of development—not just housing. Even though housing accounts for about 70 per cent. of land used for urban development, other uses can be a greater threat to sustainable development. Our planning policy guidance on town centres—to which we formally reaffirmed our commitment in our response to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in July 1997—makes it clear that we expect offices, shopping, leisure and other key town-centre uses to go to town centres.
That policy is especially important for small market towns, which are easily undermined by out-of-town-centre shopping and leisure developments. Not building out of town also saves green-field sites.
One of the issues that my hon. Friend raised is how to get brown-field sites back into use, especially if they are contaminated. In particular, he raised the question whether a tax on green-field development could be used for that purpose. The issue of taxing green-field development was raised by a number of respondents to the previous Government's Green Paper. Many respondents who argued for high brown-field recycling levels called for economic instruments to help local authorities to achieve that end.
We have not taken decisions yet on those options. We want to hear people's views and undertake more research and analysis. Unlike the previous Government, we want to open up a debate about the scope for using economic instruments to help to achieve our planning objectives.
In his intervention, the hon. Member for North Norfolk referred to VAT. That is another important issue, but when we are discussing bringing back derelict and empty sites such as the one to which my hon. Friend referred, VAT is not relevant, as no VAT is chargeable on new housing. Any decisions on national taxation are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) raised the issue of a sequential test. He will know that we are considering the matter. We shall say more about it when we make the statement in due course.
With regard to the muckworks site in King's Lynn, I understand that a study on the potential for redevelopment on the site may soon be undertaken, as my hon. Friend said, and that English Partnerships has indicated that it will contribute a significant proportion of the costs of the study. My hon. Friend questioned English Partnerships' potential on-going contribution. My understanding is that subject to the outcome of the study, and subject to demand and to detailed development proposals demonstrating a shortfall of developed value against development cost, English Partnerships will consider financially supporting the regeneration of that site.
Finally, I shall deal with the countryside—the other side of the coin. Let me make it clear that we are committed to protecting the countryside, but we cannot freeze it in a time warp. People in the countryside need homes and jobs. In some cases, change is inevitable, but it must be positive and sustainable. Our planning policies already promote such change with an emphasis on strict control, decent design and rural regeneration.
From some accounts, one would think that the English countryside was now confined to a few pockets of land. In fact, almost 90 per cent. of England remains rural; 12 per cent. is green belt and another 33 per cent. is specially protected—for example, national parks. Urban areas look set to grow from 10.6 per cent. to 11.9 per cent. of England by 2016. That figure could be even smaller if local authorities and private developers did more to recycle land. Even at 11.9 per cent., there will be more green-belt land than urban land.
However, we are concerned not just with protecting the green belt. We are concerned about the countryside as a whole. We are looking for the most sustainable solutions, and sometimes, as was said last night, a green-belt site will offer the most sustainable place for new development—for example, when the alternative would mean developing on better quality land beyond the green belt.
Overall, we must look at these difficult issues—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-three minutes to Twelve midnight.